Material alteration held inconsequential and not affecting rights and liabilities of parties.

This appeal from the judgment of Ramaswami Gounder, J., arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of one-third share in the properties conveyed to the plaintiff and his two brothers, defendants 3 and 4, by delendant 43 under a sale deed dated, 28th March, 1946. The sale was for a consideration of Rs. 3,000 of which Rs. 1,000 was paid by the plaintiff to defendant 43 at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The vendor, evidently, having at the instance of his brothers, defendants 1 and 2, refused to register the sale deed, the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 got it compulsorily registered. The property conveyed under the sale deed is in Mannankadu village in Pattukottai taluk, which is a shrotriam inam consisting of 16 shares. Panchapakesa Ayyar and his sons, defendants 1, 2 and 43, owned 2-12-9 shares out of them under a Court auction purchase. Even after the death of Panchapakesa Ayyar, his three sons continued, as before, as members of a joint Hindu family. ‘Under the said sale deed, defendant 43 sold his undivided one-third share in the 2-12-9 shares in the village.

A number of alienees from the father as well as defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded as party defendants but they were all given up. Defendant 43 remained ex parte and defendants 1 and 2 were the only contesting defendants. They raised various defences but it is only necessary for the purpose of this appeal to refer to two of them, namely, (1) that the sale deed did not satisfy the requirements of section 22 of the Registration Act and (2) that the sale deed was rendered void by a material alteration therein between the dates of its execution and registration. These two defences found favour with the trial and the first appellate Courts with the result that the suit stood dismissed. On Second Appeal by the plaintiff, Ramaswami Gounder, J., differing from the Courts below, found no substance in those contentions and allowed the Second Appeal by granting a preliminary decree for partition as prayed for by the plaintiff and directing him to deposit into Court Rs. 2,000 being the balance of the sale price within the specified time to the credit of defendant 43 who was entitled to recover the same.

In this appeal before us were reiterated the same two contentions on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 which the first two Courts had accepted but rejected by Ramaswami Gounder, J. The first of them relying on the provisions of section 22 of the Registration Act proceeded on the plea that the sale deed, purporting to convey an one-third share in the 2-12-9 shares, contained no description of the properties or survey numbers though the village in which they were situate was surveyed as early as 1930. It was stated that in the absence of a description of the properties inculding survey numbers conveyed by the suit sale deed, it could not be said what properties were intended to be conveyed by and included in the sale deed and that as it was thus vague and indefinite, it was void. The sale deed recited that lands representing 2-12-9 out of 16 shares in the inam Mannankadu village were purchased by the vendor’s father the late Panchapakesa Ayyar in auction and taken delivery of possession by him and that the vendor conveyed exclusive of the properties sold by him, and out of the balance remaining as detailed thereunder in 2-12-9 shares of nanja, punja, trees, samudayam vagaira in the village, his one-third share. The sale deed went on to say that the vendor left the properties conveyed thereunder in the enjoyment of the vendees from the date of the sale and declared that there were no previous encumbrances in respect of them. Then followed the details of the property which set out the four major boundaries for the inam No. 170 Mannankadu village, Pattukottai taluk and the extent of the village as consisting of 240 velies inclusive of shrotriam. The further details given there are: ‘out of the Gana Sankaya Bagham (aggregate of shares into which the