The passing of title on registration, the importance of registration, and the application of the doctrine of lis pendens were central to the court's decision.

This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment in A.S.No.97 of 2004 confirming judgment of trial Court in O.S.No.40 of 1999 decreeing plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Unsuccessful defendant is the appellant.

2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.40 of 1999 for declaration and permanent injunction. They claimed right and title on the basis of Ex.A1 sale deed dated 30.11.1998, executed by Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty. It is the case of the respondents that the suit property measuring an extent of 60 cents and 22 cents in R.S.Nos.41/3 and 41/5 respectively in Ninnaiyur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk was purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,960/- under the Ex.A1 sale deed dated 30.11.1998 and that from the date of purchase, they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property.

3. Further case of plaintiffs is that Defendants property is on the western side of the suit property. Defendants in collusion with Arumuga Chetty and his minor son Azhagesan attempted to claim right over the undivided 1/2 share in the suit properties on the basis of Ex.B7 sale deed (dt.012. 1998) but antedated and executed on 19.08.1998 with a view to defeat the right of the respondents. After issuing notice, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

4. Appellant resisted the suit inter-alia contending that suit property originally belonged to Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty and that on 01.06.1998, Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty agreed to sell the property for sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- and entered into a sale agreement and on that date itself they handed over the possession of the suit properties to the defendant. According to defendant, from 01.06.1998, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, that on 19.08.1998, Arumuga Chetty and his legal heir executed a sale deed in favour of defendant and on 11.09.1998, Kesava Chetty orally sold his ½ share in the suit properties and that the suit is liable to dismissed.

5. On the above pleadings four issues were framed in the trial Court. On the side of plaintiffs, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of defendant, defendant himself was examined as DW1. Chinnasamy was examined as DW2. Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. Exs. C1 and C2 were also marked.

.6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that defendant was not in possession of the suit property from 01.06.1998 as claimed by him and plaintiffs are entitled to suit properties as per Ex.A1 sale deed dated 30.11.1998. Trial Court further held that Ex.B3 sale agreement is not a bonafide document and the defendant had not raised any objections for registration of Ex.A1 sale deed. Pointing out patta has been granted to the respondents, trial Court decreed plaintiffs suit.

7. Aggrieved by decreeing of suit, defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.97 of 2004. Lower Appellate Court pointed out that Ex.B8 sale deed (dt.19.04.1999) is subsequent to the suit i.e., 4 months after the suit and therefore Ex.B8 is hit by lis-pendens. Lower Appellate Court further held that Ex.B8 will not prevail upon Ex.A1. Holding that Ex.B3 agreement of sale was not executed on the date on which document was said to be executed, lower Appellate Court confirmed findings of trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant.

8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of Courts below defendant has filed this Second Appeal. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:-

"1. Whether the Lower Court is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that Ex.A1 dated 30.11.1998 would prevail over Ex.B8 which had been executed prior there to but registered subsequent to the Ex.A1 totally overlooking the judgment of the Supreme Court which states that a document will take effect from the date of execution and not from the date of its registration?

2. Whether