The main legal point established is that a party cannot dispute the terms of a registered document after admitting its execution, and a tenant cannot claim adverse possession. Article 65 applies when title is disputed, and the burden of proof lies on the party disputing the document's terms.

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit has been filed for declaration, possession and for mandatory injunction. The suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff has preferred the appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff in a nut shell is as follows:

The plaintiff's husband and one Samu Naidu are brothers. The defendants 1 & 2 are the sons of late Samu Naidu who died in the year 1978. The second defendant died pending the suit and the defendants 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant. The third defendant is the Pattukottai Municipality from whom the relief of mandatory injunction has been sought for, for changing the revenue records. The suit property which is a house was originally owned by the deceased Samu Nadiu. The deceased Samu Naidu obtained loan from the Pattukottai Co-operative Bank. Apart from that, he has also received loan from the plaintiff. In order to clear the debts, the deceased Samu Naidu sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed under Exhibit A-3 dated 9.4.1955. The loan obtained by Samu Naidu has also be discharged. On 10.4.1955, a tenancy agreement has been entered into between Samu Naidu and the plaintiff fixing the period of tenancy for one year under Exhibit A-16. Thereafter, the deceased Samu Naidu continued to be a tenant by paying the rent. He died in the year 1978. After his death, the defendants 1 and 2 started asserting that the suit property belongs to them. When the plaintiff approached the third defendant for the purpose of changing the records stood in the name of Samu Naidu, the third defendant has refused to do so in view of the objections by the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the sit as prayed for.

3. The case of the first defendant in brief is as follows:

It is not true that there was a sale as mentioned in the plaint under Exhibit A-3. It is also not true that the deceased father Samu Naidu has executed Exhibit A-16 tenancy. The said document executed under Exhibit A-3 and Exhibit A-16 are sham and nominal documents created for the purpose of avoiding creditors of the deceased Samu Naidu. The defendants have been enjoying the suit property as absolute owners. The alleged tenancy and payment of rent is not true. The suit is liable to be dismissed, since the defendants have become owners based upon adverse possession. The suit is also liable to be dismissed in view of the bar under Section 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the suit has not been filed after the determination of tenancy mentioned in Exhibit A-16. Therefore, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The case of the third defendant is as follows:

The third defendant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The suit is a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 3 to 5. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed as against the third defendant.

5. The defendants 3 to 5 have filed written statement which proceeds as follows:

The first defendant has informed the defendants 3 to 5 as well as the second defendant that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff only. The first defendant also informed the defendants 2 to 5 that the suit property was sold by the father of the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff and intimation has been given by the plaintiff seeking rent and to repair the damages in the house with the arrears of rent. However, the first defendant has changed his stand after filing of the suit by the plaintiff by stating that the suit property belongs to the defendants 1 and 2. The second defendant has refused to accept the written statement filed by the first defendant. The first defendant has told the other defendants that he had stated earlier that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff in order to avoid the partition between the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the written statement filed by the first defendant is not correct and the suit property only be