The registered document operates from the date of execution, and a party with unclean hands is not entitled to declaratory relief.

JUDGMENT :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge at Puducherry in A.S.No. 18 of 2016, dated 24.09.2018 in reversing the Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Principal District Munsif at Puducherry in OS.No. 60 of 2013 dated 12.12.2016.

2. The appellants before me are the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit.

3. O.S.No. 60 of 2013 was presented by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration that:

(a) the sale deed dated 31.05.2004 for the suit B schedule mentioned property executed by the fourth defendant in favour of the first defendant and registered on the file of the Oulgaret Sub Registrar in document No. 3921 of 2004 is void, in operative and incapable of creating any right or title in favor of the first defendant;

(b) the settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 05.09.2007 for the suit C schedule mentioned property and registered in document No. 4840 of 2007 is void and inoperative;

(c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and subordinates from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of suit A schedule mentioned property;

(d) for injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 and their subordinates from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule mentioned properties on the basis of the aforesaid documents in favour of third party in any manner.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that suit A schedule mentioned property belongs to him. He had purchased the same from the fourth defendant for valuable consideration, and he is in enjoyment. There are a total of 4 plots which belonged to the fourth defendant. The plaintiff had purchased the plot Nos.1 and 4 as per the sale deed dated 14.05.2004. The first defendant had purchased plot No. 2 from the fourth defendant. The subject matter of the present litigation is plot No. 3.

5. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants 1 to 3 attempted to trespass into the suit schedule mentioned property by claiming that they had purchased the property on 31.05.2004 from the fourth defendant. This property is shown as B schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff alleged that even before the purchase made by the first defendant, the plaintiff had purchased a portion of the property to an extent of 967 sq. ft., denoted as A schedule mentioned property, from the fourth defendant.

6. The plaintiff further alleged that on the strength of the fraudulent sale deed dated 31.05.2004, the first defendant alienated the property in favour of the second defendant by executing a registered settlement deed on 05.09.2007. As the defendants were taking steps to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and also since they were trying to alienate the property, he lodged a complaint with the Reddiyarpalayam Police Station. Since no action was taken by the police, the plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No. 60 of 2013 before the Principal District Munsif Court at Puducherry.

7. Summons were issued to the defendants. The third defendant filed a detailed written statement. This was adopted by the defendants 1 and 2.

8. The case of the defendants 1 to 3 is that the alleged document dated 14.05.2004 is said to have been purchased by the plaintiff in itself is a fabricated document. The document does not contain a proper resurvey or cadastre number, and it does not correlate with the revenue records. They would state that there is no survey number in the suit properties bearing cadastre No. 133/2/2. They asserted that the first defendant had purchased the B schedule mentioned property for valuable consideration on 31.05.2004. The written statement proceeds to plead that the first defendant was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property, and thereafter, it was settled by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant on 05.09.2007. They would state that the second defendant is in possession of the B schedule mentioned property