Rajamannar, C.J.-This appeal raises an interesting question of law on which there is no direct authority. The facts necessary for discussing this question are briefly these. Defendants 2 and 3 executed a sale-deed (Exhibit P-1) on 2nd August, 1942, conveying the suit properties to the first plaintiff. The second defendant by a sale-deed dated 1st July, 1942, purported to convey the same properties to the first defendant. It has now been found by the Courts below that this saledeed was ante-dated and that it was actually executed subsequent to the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the first plaintiff. After the execution of the sale-deed in favour of the first plaintiff, evidently in view of the sale deed executed by the second defendant, in favour of the first defendant, the third defendant added the following at the end of the sale deed:

“Should any dispute arise in respect of this it shall not concern us”.

Though the plural is used, only the third defendant made this endorsement. When the document was presented for registration the third defendant accepted execution; but the second defendant refused to join in the registration on the ground that there had been a material alte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document