The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below is the appellant herein.

2. This suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff would contend that Kuppu Mudaliar got the suit property under Partition Deed dated 11.06.1962. By way of an unregistered Settlement Deed dated 20.12.1963, he settled the suit property in favour of his first wife Navaneethammal towards her maintenance. As the said document was not duly stamped, it was impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the stamped duty and penalty was paid by Navaneethammal. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the said property under the Sale Deed dated 112. 1981, from the said Navaneethammal. Claiming to be the rightful owner of the suit property under the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 112. 1981, the suit was laid by the plaintiff not only for declaration of title, but also for recovery of possession.

3. The defendant set up a plea in the written statement that he purchased the suit property from the original owner Kuppu Mudaliar by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 210. 1971. It is contended by the defendant that the Settlement Deed dated 20.12.1963, is an anti-dated, forged and fabricated document. Old stamp paper was used with the ulterior motive to grab the suit property. It is the contention of the defendant that the Settlement Deed dated 20.12.1963 does not convey right and title with respect to the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim title to the suit property.

4. Both the Courts below returned a finding that the Settlement Deed dated 20.12.1963, is an anti-dated, forged and fabricated document and therefore, it cannot be used even for any collateral purpose.

5. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal:

1. Whether the Courts below are justified in not believing the Maintenance Deed Ex.A-3 executed on 20.12.1963 which is admitted by the defendant.

2. Whether the Courts are justified in not considering that the Sale Deed Ex.A2 said to have been executed by Navaneethammal is not supported by valid and proper consideration.

3. Whether the Courts below erred in not considering that the plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser of suit property without notice of encumbrances and charge over the property.

4. Whether the Courts below have correctly decided the question of estoppel against the defendant having knowledge about the prior execution of Maintenance Deed and charge over the suit property.

6. On a thorough perusal of the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and the points urged across the bar, the substantial questions of law arisen in this Second Appeal are recast as follows:

1. Whether the Settlement Deed dated 20.12.1963 being an unregistered document could convey any right or title with respect to the suit property?

2. Whether the defendant was estopped from claiming right and title to the suit property when he had the knowledge of the prior execution of Maintenance Deed by his vendor in favour of his wife Navaneethammal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant drawing the attention of this Court to the discussion embarked by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court would submit that uncharitable comments have been made by the Courts below on the Settlement Deed Ex.A.3, which was executed by Kuppu Mudaliar in favour of his wife Navaneethammal. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court failed to consider Ex.A.3 for collateral purpose quite against the spirit of proviso (a) to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 even when the stamp duty was duly paid in the impounding proceedings taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, long prior to the litigation emanated between the parties. The Settlement Deed Ex.A.3 can very well be looked into for the collateral purpose of establishing the nature of right enjoyed by the plaintiff, he would submit. It is his further submission that the defendan