The admission of execution of a document for the purpose of section 35 of the Registration Act requires the executant to admit not just the signature or thumb impression, but also the terms of the document.

The appellant in these two appeals is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 295242 of 1978 and the first defendant in O.S. No. 3 of 1980 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppattur, North Arcot District. The respondent in these two appeals is the defendant in O.S. No. 295 of 1978 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3 of 1980.

2. The appellant herein filed the suit O.S. No. 295 of 1978 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruppattur for directing the sale deed dated 2-11-1977 to be ordered to be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi. The case of the appellant in the said suit is as follows:

“The respondent herein executed the sale deed dated 2-11-1977 after receiving the entire sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. All the formalities required for the registration of the document have been strictly complied with and the sale deed dated 2-11-1977 was presented for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi. The appellant called upon the respondent to register the document by means of a lawyers notice dated 29-9-1977. The respondent refused to register the document. The reupon the appellant applied for compulsory registration of the sale deed dated 2-11-1977 and the respondent after receiving the notice of compulsory registration, did not register the document and the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi, after enquiry, passed orders on 20-1-1978 refusing to register the document. The appellant then filed an appeal before the District Registrar of Vellore and the Distriet Registrar, Vellore, after due enquiry, passed final orders under section 76 read with section 20 (1) of the Registration Act, confirming the order of refusal passed by the Sub-Registrar, Vaniyambadi. The order of the District Registrar, Vellore dated 21-8-1978 is illegal and liable to be set aside.

3. The respondent herein as defendant in O.S. No. 295242 of 1978 resisted the suit contending as following:

The sale deed dated 2-11-1977 is void in law and not anforceable. The entire sale consideration was not received as alleged in the plaint. In as much as the respondent herein deniea the execution of the sale deed dated 2-11-1977 the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar rightly refused to register the document. The interpolations in the sale deed were not made at the time when the respondent affixed her thumb-im-presssion in the sale deed. The interpolations in the sale deed were made only after the respondent affixed heer thumb-impression on the sale deed. The recitals in the sale deed dated 2-11-1977 regarding the 5. H.P. oil engine and 16 cocount trees were inserted only after the respondent affixed in her thumb impression on the said deed. The respondent is an illiterate woman and she does not know to read and write. Though the 5. H.P. Kirloskar oil engine and 16 coconut trees very not agreed to be sold, the appellant, with the help of the scribe and attestors, had materially altered the document after the thumb impression of the respondent was taken and before it was given for compulsory registration. In those circumtances the respondent had denied the execution of the said document, which is materially altered.

4. The respondent herein in her turn filed the suit O.S. No. 3242 of 1980 for declaration of her title to the suit property and for permanent injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit property. The case of the respondent in O.S. No. 3242 of 1980 is that the suit property originally belonged to her father Bossiyappan and out of love and affection he had executed a settle ment deed in favour of the respondent on 12-12- 1971 and delivered possession of the suit property to the respondent. The further case of the respon dent is that the appellant herein, who has no manner of right, title or interest in the suit proper ty taking advantage of the position as adjacent land owner is attempting to trespass into the suit land and caused disturbance to her peaceful pos session.

5. The appellant herein as the first defendant resi