The central legal point established in the judgment is that a fictitious entry in a sale deed for the purpose of facilitating registration in a specific office invalidates the registration, constituting a fraud on the Registration Law.

1. The lower Appellate Court should not have gone into the question of the genuineness (that is, the execution by the ostensible excellent) of the sale-deed C, when the grounds of appeal to the lower Appellate Court did not raise any such contention and when the document was allowed without objection in the District Munsifs Court to be exhibited and argued upon as a genuine document.

2. Some of the other questions, namely, whether the document was nominal or fictitious, whether its registration was legally effected (that is, whether a fictitious land was included in it for purposes of registering it in a particular Registration Office, and whether that fact legally invalidates the registration), and the contention as to title, etc., mentioned in the District Munsifs judgment have not been considered at all by the lower Appellate Court and the rest have not been decided by it.

3. We request the lower Appellate Court to submit its findings on these questions.

4. Further evidence will be allowed only on the facts connected with the question of the validity of the registration of Exhibit.

5. The findings should be submitted within two months from receipt of records and ten days will be allowed for filing objections. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura submitted the following

FINDINGS

1. I have been directed to submit by findings on the following issues--

(1) Whether the decedent Exhibit C is nominal or fictitious, whether its registration was legally effected (that is, whether a fictitious land was included in it for purposes of registering it in a particular Registration Office and whether that fact legally invalidates the registration)?

(2) Whether the plaint land belonged to the 4th defendant and title passed to Nachiyappa Chetti and from him to plaintiff?

(3) Whether the rent sale relied on by the 5th defendant is true and valid or whether it is fraudulent or collusive as pleaded by plaintiff?

2. As per their Lordships order, additional evidence was taken only on the question relating to the validity of the registration of Exhibit C.

3. I shall first take up issues Nos. 2 and 3 together. Admittedly, the suit land No. 566, Veppal Punjah 1 kuli and add, in the village of Chinnavallikkulam, originally belonged to Poosari Subba Reddi. The plaintiffs case is that Poosari Subba Reddi sold this land to 4th defendant, Venkatachala Reddi, under Exhibit A, dated 15th May 1890, that the latter inter alia mortgaged it to Nachiyappa Chetti, now examined as plaintiffs 4th witness, that the latter obtained a mortgage decree against the 4th defendant and purchased in execution of that decree the suit land and three other items of land and got possession of the same through Court under Exhibit E in November 1899, and that he sold the suit land along with a house site at Aratnanaippatti, 80 miles off the suit village, Chinnavallikkulam, to the plaintiff under Exhibit C, dated 4th August 1911, i.e., about two months before the institution of this suit. The congesting defendants are Nos. 8 and 9 who are the legal representatives of the 5th defendant the late melwardtndar of the suit village. Their claim is confined to 0-14-0 kali of the suit land and they are not interested in the remaining extent. Their case is that so far as 0-14-0 huli is concerned, Poosari Subba Reddi continued in possession of the land, that neither the 4th defendant as owner, nor Nachiyappa Chetti ever enjoyed the land, that for arrears of rent for Fasli 1313, 0-6-1 kuli was brought to sale and the 5th defendant purchased it on 26th January 1905, and similarly be purchased 0-7-3 huli on 25th January 1903 at a rent pale held for arrears of rent of Fasli 1314, and that ever since the 5th defendant was enjoying the land through his tenants, defendants Nos. 1 to 4. The question is who was in possession of the land claimed by defendants Nos. 8 and 9 since 1890 until the dates of the rent sales?

11....P. Subba Reddi