The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court's jurisdiction for filing the suit is not excluded by implication, and the findings by the registering authorities cannot form res judicata.

1. The present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.100 of 2005, dated 24.02.2006, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthura, in O.S.No.32 of 2001, dated 20.12.2004.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:- The suit property was originally belonged to the deceased-first plaintiff. After the death of the first plaintiff, the plaintiffs 2 and 3/appellants herein are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since both the plaintiffs and the defendant are having adjacent lands, it was stated in the plaint, that the defendant wanted the plaintiffs to sell his property to him. But, the plaintiffs were not willing for the said proposal. However, when the plaintiffs refused to sell their property, the defendant, created a forged sale deed, dated 19.02.1989, to the effect that it was signed by the plaintiffs, and for which, a sum of Rs.6,000/- was received by the plaintiffs and thereafter, the defendant wrongly presented the document for registration before the Sub Registrar, Kuttalam, on 12.06.1989. The Sub-Registrar, Kuttalam, in turn, refused to register the sale deed, dated 19.02.1989. As against the same, when an appeal was preferred before the District Registrar, Mayiladuthurai, in A.P.No.1/89, the said District Registrar, after conducting an enquiry, passed an order, dated 29.02.2000, directing the Sub-Registrar, Kuttalam, to register the sale deed, dated 19.02.1989. In pursuant to the same, the Sub-Registrar, Kuttalam, was taking steps to register the same. Therefore, it was stated in the plaint that the District Registrar is not having competency to decide about the title of the plaintiffs or about the validity of the documents and hence, the order passed by the District Registrar is not valid in law. Therefore, challenging the same, a suit has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.32 of 2001 seeking to pass a decree declaring that the sale deed, dated 19.02.1989, alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant, is a forged document, with a consequential direction not to cause interference with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. Opposing the said prayer, the defendant has filed a detailed written statement, stating that the plaintiffs have purposely suppressed the facts with a view to defeat the rights of the defendant, inasmuch as when the first plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.6,000/-as a sale consideration on 19.02.1989, for selling the suit property, admittedly, executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant. The said document has been duly attested by witnesses of the native village. As the plaintiffs refused to come forward to execute the sale deed with a view to extract more money, the defendant presented the sale deed for compulsory registration before the Sub-Registrar, Kuttalam and in turn, the Sub-Registrar referred the matter before the District Registrar. Thereafter, the District Registrar, Mayiladuthurai, by holding a proper enquiry, passed the proceedings in appeal No.1/89 and pronounced a judgment on 29.12.2000, by holding that the sale deed, dated 19.02.1989, has to be registered and the alleged forgery of vendors signature stands not proved. Therefore, it was stated in the written statement that, even without challenging the order passed by the District Registrar, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is not valid in law. Further, it was stated that if really the plaintiffs have got any grievance, they ought to have preferred a revision before the High Court only and not by filing the suit before the Civil Court.

4. Under these circumstance, the learned trial Court framed the following issues;-

"i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and consequential permanent injunction as sought for?

ii.