The distinction between signing and executing a document is crucial; mere signature admission does not equate to execution, impacting the validity of registration.

JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 passed in A.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 made in O.S.No.46 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli.

1. The Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2017 passed in A.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 made in O.S.No.46 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli.

2.The plaintiffs, who suffered concurrent findings at the hands of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, are the appellants in the present Second Appeal.

3.The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4.The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of their title to the suit property; for a permanent injunction to restrain the 3rd defendant from trespassing into the suit property or from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment and to declare the order dated 12.01.2011 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2011 by the 5th defendant as null and void.

5.The facts on which the plaintiffs filed the said suit are as follows:

According to the plaintiffs, the suit property, along with other properties, originally belonged to the 1st and 2nd defendants and under a Sale Deed dated 28.10.2010 vide Doc.No.2860/2010, the suit property and other properties were sold to the plaintiffs by the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs claim to be an absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property, ever since their purchase and patta was also issued to them and they have been paying kists. The 3rd defendant, on 20.04.2011, along with his henchmen attempted to trespass into the suit land, claiming that he had already purchased the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made enquiries and applied for certified copies and came to know that on 03.05.2010, the 3rd defendant had purchased the suit land from the 2nd defendant under a Deed of Sale which remained unregistered on that date. It appears that the 3rd defendant did not have the sale consideration amount to be paid to the 2nd defendant and therefore, the 2nd defendant refused to register the Sale Deed. However, the 3rd defendant has attempted to register the documents by way of compulsory registration before the 4th defendant. The 4th defendant rejected the registration of the Sale Deed on 16.08.2010. As against the rejection order passed by the 4th defendant, the 3th defendant has passed an order dated 12.01.2011 in M.C.No.01 of 2011, directing the 4th defendant to register the Sale Deed dated 03.05.2010 in favour of the 3rd defendant. The order passed by the 5th defendant was on 12.01.2011 only. The plaintiffs are not bound by the order passed by the 5th defendant on 12.01.2011 and they are not only bonafide but also legal purchasers under an earlier Sale Deed dated 28.10.2010 which was duly registered subsequent to which possession was also handed over to the plaintiffs.

6.The 1st and 2nd defendants did not file any written statement before the Trial Court even though they were served with summons and they appeared through their counsel. However, the 3rd defendant filed a written statement stating that the 2nd defendant had duly executed the Sale Deed and it was the 2nd defendant who drafted the Sale Deed, but however, he did not turn up for registration of Sale Deed. Therefore, the 3rd defendant applied for compulsory registration of the Sale Deed in his favour. Though the Sub Registrar, Pochampalli refused to register the Sale Deed, on appeal the District Registrar set aside the order of the Sub Registrar and directed the 4th defendant to register the Sale Deed in favour of the 3rd defendant. The 3rd defendant would deny that the plaintiffs are in possessio