An unregistered document cannot convey title and cannot be relied upon for any purpose. The relief of injunction cannot be granted against the defendant who has better title and who is the true owner of the property.

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The defendant in O.S.No.223 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur is the appellant. O.S.No.223 of 1995 had been filed by Kulandai Thiresu and Alphones for a declaration of title or in the alternative declaration of possessory title and consequential injunction to protect possession in respect of the suit property.

2. The suit property was punja land measuring 1.22.0 hectares in Nemam Village, Thiruppthur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

3. The first plaintiff is the mother and the second plaintiff is her son. The first plaintiff claimed title on the basis of a unregistered sale deed dated 21.5.1986 executed by the defendant/Savariammal. After purchase, the plaintiffs were granted patta by the Tahsildar, Thiruppathur. The defendant had filed an application to cancel the patta and the same was dismissed by the Tahsildar. The defendant had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was allowed. The plaintiffs had filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer and the same was dismissed. The defendant, therefore, claimed title and attempted to disturb the possession of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit had been filed, seeking the relief’s as stated above.

4. In the written statement the defendant claimed that the sale deed dated 21.05.1986 was forged by the plaintiffs. The defendant claimed that consideration was not paid. The defendant affixed her thumb impressions without knowing the contents of the document which were not read out and explained. The defendant claimed that she was an illiterate person. The defendant sought dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned District Munsif, Thiruppathur had framed the following issues.

1. Whether the first plaintiff was entitled to the suit property by way of sale deed or by way of possessory title?

2. Whether the suit property was in the possession of the defendant?

3. Whether the sale deed dated 21.05.1986 was obtained by cheating the defendant and her family members?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction?

5. To what relief’s are the plaintiffs entitled to?

6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the second plaintiff Alphones was examined as P.W.1 and three independent witnesses Sundari, Vellaikkannu and Kandasamy were examined as P.W.2, P.W.3 & P.W.4. The plaintiffs had marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14. Ex.A.1 is the Patta granted on 08.08.1986. Ex.A.2 is the UDR Patta. Ex.A.3 is the unregistered sale deed. Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.9 are the tax receipts paid by the plaintiffs. Ex.A.10 is the order of the Tahsildar dated 12.06.1989. Ex.A.11 is the Order of the District Revenue Officer dated 31.12.1992.

7. On the side of the defendant, the defendant Savariammal was examined as D.W.1 and one independent witness Chinnappan was examined as D.W.2. The defendant had marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.17. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.15 are tax receipts and Ex.P.17 is the Order of the District Revenue Officer.

8. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif, Thiruppathur held that the plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of an unregistered sale deed and observed that an unregistered document is not admissible in evidence and no relief can be granted on the basis of the said document. It was observed that a sale deed has to be compulsorily registered and it was held that the plaintiffs cannot be granted the relief of declaration or the relief of possessory title. The suit was dismissed.

9. The plaintiffs then filed A.S. No.132 of 1998 which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai. The learned Subordinate Judge re-examined the evidence on record and framed the following points for determination.

1. Whether the plaintiffs got title to the suit property by virtue of the unregistered sale deed under Ex.A.3?

2. Whether Ex.A.3 can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose I.e., to decide the nature and character of p