JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Arani, North Arcot District in O.S.No.27 of 1985 dated 29.11.1988.

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit arises out of the common judgment and decree dated 29.11.1988, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Arani in O.S.No.27 of 1985 and O.S.No.20 of 1986.

1.1. O.S.No.27 of 1985 is filed by one K.R.Renganatha Mudaliar against Ranganeyagi and her husband Rajamanicka Gounder, praying that the defendants should handover the possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff. O.S.No.20 of 1986 is filed by Ranganeyagi Ammal against the said K.R.Renganatha Mudaliar, to declare the sale deed dated 19.05.1983 as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. For the sake of convenience, the parties namely, Ranganeyagi, is referred to in this judgment as “the Vendor” and K.R.Renganatha Mudaliar as “the Purchaser”.

1.2. The case of the parties in their plaint in their respective suits and in the written statement in the counter suit is identical. Since both are cross suits in respect of the same transaction and between the same parties in respect of the same suit schedule properties, the same was taken up by way of joint trial and was disposed of by a judgment. This appeal suit was initially dismissed on the ground that a single Appeal Suit against the common judgments in two suits is not maintainable. Upon filing Letters Patent Appeal a Division Bench ruled that a single Appeal is maintainable and remanded the Appeal Suit to be heard on merits and accordingly the matter is now taken up for disposal on merits.

B. The Case of the Purchaser :

2. The case of the Purchaser is that the suit property belonged to the Vendor. The Vendor and her husband sold the property to the Purchaser for a total sale consideration of Rs.47,000/-. On 19.05.1983, the sale deed was duly executed by the Vendor and it was witnessed by her husband. It is mentioned in the sale deed that an advance of Rs.30,000/- was received for payment of loans. After receiving the said advance amount and signing the sale deed, the Vendor did not discharge the loan amount and did not come forward to get the document registered. After the exchange of legal notices, the Purchaser, therefore, sought compulsory registration of the sale deed under Section 74 of the Registration Act. The said petition in O.P.No.2 of 1984 was ordered by the Sub Registrar, Kannamangalam, who had the powers of the District Registrar under the Act, after a detailed enquiry. Thus, the said sale deed dated 19.05.1983 was duly registered. After the sale, the defendant was bound to quit and deliver the vacant possession to the Purchaser and therefore, the Purchaser filed O.S.No.27 of 1985 to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property and to award the costs of the suit.

C. The Case of the Vendor:

3. The case of the Vendor is that she is the owner of the property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Purchaser agreed to purchase the house property for a total sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- and a balance amount of Rs.65,000/- had to be paid. The Vendor had to discharge the debts namely pro-note debt of due to one Lakshmanan S/o Thandavaraya Gounder of Nellore, mortgage debt due to one Hameed Sahib of Kannamangalam, and the debt due to Co-Operative Housing Bank, Arni. The Purchaser had insisted that the sale deed can be written for a sum of Rs.20,000/- stating that the stamp duty for Rs.75,000/- will be more and if the value is more than Rs.50,000/- , the procedure of income tax clearance will also arise. The Vendor did not object to the said course of action. The Purchaser got stamp papers required for the value of Rs.20,000/- and had written the document with the help of a scribe. In the said document, th