A sale deed is valid and enforceable if it is executed and presented for registration within four months of the date of execution, even if the date of the document is altered with the consent of the parties.

The defendant in O.S. No. 823 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Tindivanam, who had succeeded before the trial Court and lost before the first appellate Court is the appellant. The sole appellant died and his legal representatives had been brought on record by order dated 30th August, 1995 made in C.M.P. No. 10850/95.

2. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. At the time of admission, the following two substantial questions of law were framed by this Court:—

1. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in the view it took that Ex. A.12 is not hit by the

provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Registration Act? And

2. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in its conclusion that the right of the appellant to obtain specific performance is barred by limitation and she cannot resist the suit for recovery of possession?

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit for redemption of the mortgage under Ex. A1 dated 27.07.1966. According to the plaintiff the property originally belonged to one Ramanathan who had mortgaged the property under Ex. A1, that the plaintiff had purchased the equity of redemption from the said Ramanathan under Ex. A12 dt. 12.05.1972, that on 27.07.1966 under Ex. A5 on the date of mortgage itself an agreement was entered between the mortgagor and mortgagee by which the mortgagee was inducted in possession to be in enjoyment of the mortgaged property in lieu of interest, that the plaintiff after the purchase caused a notice demanding redemption and that as the defendant had declined, the suit has been instituted.

5. The defendant/mortgagee resisted the suit contending that in terms of Ex. A5, it has been agreed between the mortgagor and mortgagee that the mortgagor will sell the property only to the mortgagee, if the mortgagor proposes to sell, that the mortgagee has got a right to purchase the property in terms of the agreement, that the sale of equity of redemption in favour of the plaintiff is not valid, not true, unenforceable, and not binding on the defendant, that the defendant has got the right of pre-emption to purchase, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as the sale in his favour is not valid.

6. The trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence held that the sale in favour of the plaintiff is not true, not valid, that it is not a bona fide transaction, that the defendant is entitled to purchase the property, that the defendants right to purchase the property is barred by limitation, that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 and in the light of the said finding, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 30 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tindivanam.

7. The first appellate Court held that the sale deed executed by the mortgagor, namely Ex. A12 is valid, true and the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the mortgaged properties. The first appellate Court held that the defendants claim to sell the property is barred by limitation as the defendant had not taken any steps to enforce the agreement, besides holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1979 by granting a decree for redemption on condition that the plaintiff deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on or before 19.01.1978 and granted three months time to the defendant to surrender possession from the date of such deposit and granted a preliminary decree. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the Second Appeal.

8. Admittedly, till this date, the defendant has not taken any steps to enforce the agreement Ex. A5 dated 27.07.1966. Apart from the fact that the lower appellate Court held that the right to enforce Ex. A5 is barred by limitation, there is no requirement to decide the second question of law in this Second Appeal as the defendants right, if any under Ex. A5 has been lost as no action has been taken by the defendant to