Deed cannot be registered due to certain draw backs.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.156 of 1981 is the appellant in S.A.No.1931 of 1983. Defendant in O.S.No.206 of 1981 are the appellants in S.A.No.1820 of 1984.

2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.156 of 1981 (S.A.No.1931 of 1983) is as follows: On 1. 1978, the defendant has duly executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration and the defendant received Rs. 100 towards the educational expenses of his sons and agreed to receive the balance of sale price before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. The attestors also attested the document. The defendant has consented to be present in the Registration Office on 1. 1978 and consented to attach the market value statement. The defendant did not come to the Registration Office on 1. 1978. The plaintiff sent a registered letter on 11. 1978 and the defendant did not receive the same. So, the plaintiff presented the document for compulsory registration, since the plaintiff felt suspicious about the conduct of the defendant. Since the defendant did not turn up the Sub-Registrar refused to register it. So, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Registrar in A.P.No.3 of 1978: The District Registrar passed an order refusing to direct the registration of the document since he was not able to ascertain the willingness of the defendant to attach the statement of market value and as the requirement of stamp law and the Rule thereunder were not complied with. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with this suit for registration of the document.

3. The defendant has filed written statement contending that he had not executed any sale deed and had not received any amount and he also never agreed to receive any balance amount before the Sub-Registrar. He also denies the presence of the attesting witnesses.

4. The suit was tried by the District Munsif, Jayamkondan and it was decreed. In the first appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

5. Aggrieved against that judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal S.A.No. 1931 of 1983 is filed by the plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff in O.S.No.206 of 1981 filed that suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. The suit property belonged to the deceased Subramania Pillai. The suit property is a portion of house and house site while the contiguous other portions belong to agnaters of Subramania Pillai. The other portions belonged to one Arumugham Pillai. After his death, his share devolved on the legal representatives under a will, Subramania Pillai leased out the property on rent to the first defendant. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Ganapathy and his heirs, who is the son of Subramania Pillai. The plaintiff issued notice to the first defendant to surrender possession. The first defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and falsely put up title in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property. The second defendant has no title or any right over the suit property.

7. The first defendant filed written statement contending that he has not agreed with Subramania Pillai for rent and he has agreed to pay rent of Rs. 15 per month to the second defendant. This defendant has knowledge about the sale in favour of the plaintiff only after receipt of notice from the plaintiff, The Second defendant has filed O.S.No.1338 of 1978 objecting the sale and that suit is pending and the suits to be tried at one time.

8. The second defendant filed written statement contending that Ganapathy son of Subramania Pillai executed a sale deed in favour of this defendant on 1. 1978. Since he did not turn up for registration, O.S.No.1338 of 1978 is filed for compulsory registration and is pending. The plaintiff has created fraudulent sale deed and it is not valid. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief asked for.

9. This suit was tried by the District Munsif, Jayamkondam and it was dismissed. In the first appeal, the judgment and d