The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and binding nature of a sale deed under the Registration Act, 1908, and the application of Sections 47 and 75(3) in determining the precedence of registered documents.

The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Villupuram, dated 08.08.2001, made in A.S.No.101 of 2000, confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram, dated 14.08.2000, made in O.S.No.522 of 1996.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are hereinafter described as plaintiff and the defendants, respectively, as dealt with by the trial Court.

3. The second defendant in O.S.No.522 of 1996 is the appellant in the present second appeal. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent herein had filed the suit before the District Munsif Court, Villupuram, in O.S.No.522 of 1996, stating that the first defendant therein was the owner of the suit property. As such, he had executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, on 02.01.1993, for a valid consideration of Rs.67,000/-. Since 02.01.1993 and 03.01.1993 were holidays, the sale deed was agreed to be registered on 04.01.1993. However, the first defendant, did not turn up for registration, on 04.01.1993. In spite of repeated requests from the plaintiff, the first defendant had not come for registering the sale deed before the Sub Registrars office at Valavanur. Therefore, the sale deed was presented for compulsory registration, on 22. 1993, within the time limit prescribed by law. In spite of notices having been sent to the first defendant, the first defendant did not appear before the Sub Registrar, Valavanur. Hence, the said Sub Registrar had refused to register the sale deed, dated 02.01.1993.

1. The plaintiff presented the document before the District Registrar, Villupuram, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. After accepting the petition presented by the plaintiff in Petition No.5/93, the District Registrar, Villupuram, had issued the statutory notice to the first defendant asking him to show cause as to why the documents should not be registered. On 21.03.1994, the first defendant had appeared before the District Registrar, Villupuram, through his counsel and prayed for further time to file his objections. However, the first defendant had not appeared before the District Registrar, Villupuram for further hearing. After following the necessary formalities, the District Registrar, Villupuram, had issued an order, on 012. 1994, to register the document, subject to the rules applicable to such registration.

2. The second defendant, who is a close relative of both the plaintiff as well as the first defendant, was having full knowledge of the entire transaction between the plaintiff and the first defendant. However, he had colluded with the first defendant and had created a fraudulent sale deed, dated 24.02.1993, alleged to be in his favour. With regard to the entire extent of the lands in the suit survey number, consideration had passed from the second defendant to the first defendant, pursuant to the alleged sale between the first defendant and the second defendant. Having executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, on 02.01.1993, the first defendant had no right to sell the suit property to the second defendant by an alleged sale deed, dated 24.02.1993. Since the alleged sale deed, in favour of the second defendant, dated 24.02.1993, has no legal sanctity, it does not bind the plaintiff in any away. The second defendant is not a bonafide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration. The alleged sale transaction is invalid in the eye of law. The plaintiff has the absolute right of ownership over the suit property from the date of execution of the sale deed in his favour, which is dated 02.01.1993, in spite of the fact that the said document had been ordered to be registered by the District Registrar, Villpuram, only on 012. 1994. Based on the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the first defendant ought to have delivered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Since the first defendant did not deli