Validity of registered documents is upheld against challenges of discrepancies in execution dates, reaffirming that statutory presumptions apply once registration is complete.

JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2.This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court/Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam in A.S. No.48 of 2009, dated 26.08.2011 which confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court/District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vannur in O.S. No.30 of 2002, dated 22.07.2009.

3.The appellant, who is the plaintiff, was unsuccessful before both the courts below. He instituted Original Suit No. 30 of 2002 seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction in respect of an immovable property measuring 0.84 cents, situated on the eastern side of the land comprised in Survey No. 481/1A, R.S. No. 313/4, located in Vannur Panchayat, Vannur Village, Villupuram District.

4.In this appeal, the plaintiff before the Trial Court is the appellant, and the defendant is the first respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to in the same rank as they stood in the Trial Court.

5.The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are as follows: It is an admitted fact that the suit property originally belonged to Perumal Gounder. On 02.09.1996, Perumal Gounder executed a registered Power of Attorney (Ex. B3) in favour of his son. The defendant purchased the suit property through the said power agent/son of Perumal Gounder, by a sale deed dated 22.10.1996 (Ex. B4), which was registered on 21.11.1996. The plaintiff also purchased the suit property from Perumal Gounder under a sale deed dated 20.11.1996 (Ex. A3), which was registered on 30.01.1997.

6.Meanwhile, Perumal Gounder had cancelled the earlier Power of Attorney (Ex.B3) through a registered cancellation deed dated 20.11.1996 (Ex. A14). The plaintiff claims title to the suit property under the sale deed Ex.A3, whereas the defendant claims title under Ex.B4. The defendant’s sale deed is earlier in point of time. The plaintiff challenges the sale deed Ex.B4 which stands in the name of the defendant on the ground that the Power of Attorney (Ex.B3) executed by Perumal Gounder was not a valid document.

7.The essence of the case, is thus narrowed down to the issue of determining which of the two documents - Ex.B4 or Ex.A3 - is valid and effectively conveys title to the respective purchaser.

8.While admitting this Second Appeal on 01.11.2019, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law, which are reproduced verbatim below:

“1.Whether the Courts below were right in concluding that the plaintiff would not get a better title solely on the ground that the Sale Deed executed by Meibalan, Power Agent of Perumal, though registered on 21.11.1996, traced the date of execution as 22.10.1996?

2.Whether the Courts below were right in ignoring vital admissions/contradictions in the evidence of the attesting witnesses to Ex.B4 Sale Deed which would have the effect of rendering the findings of the Courts below, perverse?”

9.The plaintiff challenged the execution of the Power of Attorney (Ex.B3) executed by Perumal Gounder in favour of his son on the following grounds:

(i) Of the four stamp papers used, three were purchased on 20.09.1996, whereas the Power of Attorney was stated to have been executed on 02.09.1996.

(ii) The stamp papers used for Ex.B3 were purchased from different vendors, on different dates, and in names other than those of the principal or the agent.

(iii) The Power of Attorney deed was torn and subsequently pasted together.

10. The plaintiff contended that since the date of execution of document is ante-dated, it ought not to have been registered in view of R