The intention of the transferor and the payment of sale consideration are essential in determining the transfer of ownership under a sale deed. Compulsory registration does not confer any right if the sale consideration is not fully paid.

This Second appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.07.1995 made in A.S.No.135 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1992 made in O.S.No.529 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Thanjavur.

2. The appellants as plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property stating that originally, the suit property is originally belonged to one Pappu @ Savarimuthu Udayar, who is the paternal grandfather of the 1st plaintiff and he has executed the registered settlement deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 25.09.1982 which was duly executed, accepted and acted upon. In pursuance of the settlement, he is in possession and enjoyment. There are three shops, one shop has been in the occupation of the defendant and the other two shops are under the other two tenants. Now, the defendant, who is the tenant has claiming title under one sale deed dated 03.11.1982, alleged to be executed by Pappu alias Savarimuthu Udayar in favour of the plaintiff and he claimed for compulsory registration of the alleged deed in his favour. The said the document is not true and genuine. The defendant has kidnapped the said Pappu @ Savarimuthu Udayar on 02.11.1982 and detained in a lodge at Tanjore and he got the sale deed to be executed. Hence, the appellant has given a complaint and then only he was secured and there is no need or necessity for executing the sale deed. The vendor of the defendant died during the proceedings of compulsory registration of the alleged sale deed and he document in favour of the defendant had been ordered to be registered. Since at that time, the plaintiffs were not bring on record as Legal Representative of the deceased grandfather in the said proceedings, the order of compulsory registration is not binding the plaintiffs/appellants. Since the defendant is disputing their title to the property, they have come forward with the suit for declaration of title and injunction.

3. The defendant/respondent herein resisting the suit stating that the suit properties are belonging to one Pappu @ Savarimuthu Udayar. He executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent in respect of 13 cents where, he is doing his tea shop and he disputed that he has got the documents in fraud and coercion. Since Pappu @ Savarimuthu Udayar has refused to register the deed, the defendant had claimed compulsory registration and after enquiry, the registration has been effected. So it relied back to the date of execution of the sale deed and hence, he is the owner of the suit property. After the date of execution of the sale deed only, the settlement deed came into existence and hence the plaintiffs have no right over the property and thus he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The learned trial Judge, after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel, framed necessary issues and considering the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and D.Ws.1 and 2, Exs.A1 to 19 and Exs.B1 and 2 and decreed the suit. Aggrieved over against the said judgment and decree, the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.135 of 1993 before the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, where the same was allowed and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit, against which the plaintiffs have preferred this present second appeal.

5. At the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the lower appellate court misread or omitted to consider the oral and documentary evidence on record in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the settlement deed Ex.A1 is not valid or that its due execution has not been proved in accordance