The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 47 of the Registration Act to determine the relation of registration back to the date of execution of a sale deed, and the presumption of execution on the date borne by the deed.

1. The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2001 made in A.S.No.102 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994 passed in O.S.No.431 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

(a) One Durairaja as plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession stating that the suit properties originally belong to one Krishna Setty son of Venkatakrishna Setty. While so, when the 1st defendant attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of Krishna Setty and tried to put up illegal construction, Krishna Setty filed a suit in O.S.No.295 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif, Hosur for declaration and for mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed on 31.10.1977. Even during the pendency of the suit, Krishna Setty offered to sell the suit properties to the plaintiff and took an advance amount of Rs.1500/- and executed an agreement of sale on 17.06.1977. After the suit was decreed, the plaintiff took a sale deed from Krishna Setty for which Krishna Setty purchased the stamp papers for the sale deed from one Krishnappa on 16.12.1977. On the same date, the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration but got the sale deed registered only on 26.12.1977 as Document No.3604.

(b) In the meanwhile, Krishna Setty fudged up a sale deed as though it was written on 21.12.1977 in the name of the second defendant who is a coparcenor of the family of the first defendant. The second defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant and the father of the first defendant only has purchased the stamp papers for the concocted sale deed dated 21.12.1977. After the suit was decreed, the first defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.1 of 1980, wherein the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court. However, the said suit was subsequently dismissed as not pressed. The sale deed in favour of this plaintiff is dated 16.12.1977 and registered on 26.12.1977. The sale is for valuable consideration preceded by an agreement of sale. The very executant is estopped to deny his execution. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit.

3. The appellant herein who is the 2nd defendant in the suit had filed the written statement wherein it was stated that it is true that the suit property belonged to Krishan Setty, s/o. Venkatakrishna Setty and he was in possession of the same. The said Krishna setty filed a suit against the first defendant for declaration of title and injunction in O.S.No.295 of 1974 and the same was decreed on 31.07.1977. There is no such sale agreement and if there is any such document, it is a forged one. After the decree in the suit in O.S.No.295 of 1974, Krishna Setty and his son Venkatakrishna Setty sold the suit property to this defendant under the sale deed dated 21.12.1977. However, on 26.12.1977, the plaintiff and his brother aided by their supporters went to the house of Krishna Setty accompanied by Stamp Vendor Krishnappa and got the document registered on 26.12.1977. The said Krishna Setty issued a notice on 27.12.1977 questioning the validity of the document registered. Thus, Krishan Setty never intended to execute any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and he has not received any money from the plaintiff. Furthermore, Krishna Setty also executed a cancellation deed on 18.01.1978 in respect of the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff and recitals in the cancellation deed itseld would expose the fraud played by the plaintiff. Thus, by stating the above averments, the second defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by the third defendant is also follows:

The father of the 3rd defendant is the owner of the suit property. The stamp papers were not purchased on 16.12.1977 in the name of the 3rd defendant's father and no amount was paid to Venkatakrishna Setty. Even if any such document