An unregistered sale deed is invalid for specific performance claims, and the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the validity of the transaction.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. Thamilselvi, J.

The appellants have preferred these Second Appeals against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.5 of 2014 on the file of Subordinate Court, Attur, modifying the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2014 made in O.S.No.351 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Attur.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit.

3. The appellant in S.A.No.200 of 2024 is the plaintiff in suit O.S. No. 351 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Attur. The 2nd defendant is the appellant in another appeal, S.A.No.863 of 2024.

4. Before the trial court, the suit was decreed, against which an appeal, A.S.No.5 of 2014, was filed by the 2nd defendant, Rajammal, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Attur. The appeal was modified and partly allowed. Challenging these findings, both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant preferred the above second appeals.

5. The brief facts of the case.

The plaintiff's husband and the second defendant's husband are brothers. The 1st defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, seeking a direction for the defendants to execute the sale deed along with other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property belonged to Sellappa Gounder, the husband of the 2nd defendant. He died intestate, leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs. Due to family circumstances, the defendants decided to sell the property to the plaintiff on 08.07.2009 for valid consideration. The plaintiff paid Rs.90,000/- as the entire sale consideration, and the defendants signed the sale deed. The sale deed was also typed on the same day on stamp paper. However, as there was insufficient time to register the document, the plaintiff was advised by the Registration Office to complete the registration the next day. The defendants agreed to this and handed over possession of the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff waited for nearly two months for the defendants to execute the sale deed. On 18.09.2009, she made an oral demand. Later, on 25.09.2009, she issued a notice requesting the defendants to attend the Registration Office on 29.09.2009 for the execution of the sale deed. On 29.09.2009, the plaintiff waited at the Sub-Registrar's Office in Attur from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but the defendants failed to appear. On that day, the plaintiff signed as a witness on some other documents. Despite repeated oral and written demands, the defendants refused to execute the sale deed, even though they had received the entire sale consideration. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, seeking a direction for the defendants to execute the sale deed along with other consequential reliefs.

6. The defendants contested the suit. While they admitted the relationship and ownership of the property, they argued that the suit was not maintainable in law. They contended that if the value of the property exceeded Rs.100/-, the sale deed required valid registration. The plaintiff relied on an unregistered sale deed, which, according to the defendants, conferred no legal rights. The 2nd defendant also contended that, under Section 35 of the Registration Act , the plaintiff ought to have filed a petition before the Registrar for enforcement if the document was valid.

7. The defendants further claimed that the 2nd defendant, an illiterate woman living with her mentally challenged son (D1), was misled into signing the document under the pretense of transferring the patta. They asserted that the 2nd defendant had no intention of selling the property. The 1st defendant, being of unsound mind, was unaware of any transactions. Therefore, the defendants sought the dismissal of the suit as not maintainable.

8. Before the trial Court, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the plaintiff’s side, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined, and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked. On the defendants' side,