Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Arjunan - Appellant
Versus
Arunachalam - Respondent
S.A. Nos. 359 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided On : 02-03-2022
For the Appellant:P. Dinesh Kumar, D. Ravi Chander, Advocates. For the Respondent:M. Rajeev Gandhi, S. Kaithamalai Kumaran, Advocates.
The importance of considering all attentive circumstances and the fatal impact of non-impleading a necessary party in a property dispute.
Headnote:
Registration Act - Disputed Property - Section 47 r/w 23 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 47 r/w 23 of the Registration Act, which states that when the date of execution and the date of registration are different, the document takes effect from the date of execution. The court highlighted the importance of considering all attentive circumstances, such as the purchase of stamp paper, the presence of the executant, and whether the executant is a party defendant in the suit, in reaching a decision. The non-impleading of the vendor as a party was considered fatal to the suit. The court confirmed the finding of the lower Appellate Court based on the defendant's clear and cogent evidence and the plaintiff's failure to discharge the burden of proof.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and Permanent Injunction, claiming to have purchased the property from the son of the defendant. The defendant, the father of the common vendor, claimed title based on a sale deed executed by his son. The dispute revolved around the dates of execution and registration of the sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the lower Appellate Court's finding, stating that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof and merely relied on the provisions of the Registration Act. The non-impleading of the vendor as a party was considered fatal to the suit.
Issues: The key issue was the discrepancy in the dates of execution and registration of the sale deeds, and the failure to implead the vendor as a party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering all attentive circumstances, such as the purchase of stamp paper and the presence of the executant, in reaching a decision. The non-impleading of the vendor as a party was considered fatal to the suit.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. The Judgment and Decree of the trial Court were set aside.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2011 made in A.S.No.40 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Tindivanam, in reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.07.2009 made in O.S.No.252 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.)
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for Permanent Injunction in O.S.No.252 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Thindivanam and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
3. On appeal by the defendant in A.S.No.40 of 2009, the learned Additional Sub Judge, Thindivanam allowed the appeal and hence the Second Appeal.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
5. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from the son of the defendant, namely, Perumal by a sale deed, dated 10.02.2006. However, he refused to come to the registration department for effecting registration despite the best efforts and hence the document was refused for registration on the ground of absence of the executor and hence the plaintiff preferred a departmental appeal and on appeal being allowed under Ex.A2-sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was registered on 28.06.2006. While being so, it is alleged that the sale deed said to have been registered on 13.02.2006 with date of execution being as 06.01.2006 and hence based upon Ex.B1-sale deed, the defendant claimed title to the property and trying to interfere with the possession and hence the suit.
6. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by the respondent/defendant is that the defendant is the father of the common vendor and the sale deed was executed on 06.01.2006 in the presence of DW2 and DW3 and the same was registered on 13.02.2006. PW2 is the attestor of Ex.A1 whereas DW2 is the attestor of Ex.B1.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the date of execution of Ex.A1-sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by the son of the defendant has been duly executed and his presentation has been spoken by PW1 and PW2 and also relied upon the admission made by DW1 in the cross-examination that at the time of the registration of Ex.B1-sale deed on 13.02.2006, he had enquired with the son as to why he has executed sale deed in favour of the father in the presence of a party, has also been admitted. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff contended that after the due execution, it is presented for registration, however due to the noncooperation of the son of the defendant-Perumal, the same could not be registered and hence the plaintiff, with due diligence, followed the provision of the Registration Act and seeks the statutory remedy provided under the Registration Act and got it registered on 28.06.2006.
8. It is a specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that after coming to know about the execution of Ex.A1 by the son of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 10.02.2006 besides to make it believe as it is genuinely executed, it is ante-dated as 06.01.2006 and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that admission is the best piece of evidence. Besides, the date of the execution as it is properly executed has been spoken to by DW2.
9. To draw my attention to the finding rendered by the trial Court and as well as the lower Appellate Court. The plaintiff relying upon the Ex.A1-sale deed executed by the son of the defendant. The defendant relying upon the sale deed-Ex.B1 executed by his son(very same vendor). Ex.A1-sale deed, the date of execution is mentioned as 10.02.2006 and registered on 28.06.2006. Ex.B1-sale deed the date of execution is mentioned as 06.01.2006 and registered on 13.02.2006. The attestor of the Ex.A1 is PW2 while the attestor of Ex.B2 is DW2.
10. The defendant, namely, Arunachalam, is the father
