The validity of a document cannot be challenged by way of a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908, where the Registrar has directed registration of the document under Section 75 of the Act.

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFFS appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Aska, in a suit for declaration of the right of occupancy over the suit land measuring 35. 10 acres and for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from entering upon or otherwise interfering with the suit lands or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the suit lands.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS case, in short, in that one Harihar Misra purchased one-fourth interest in the property belonging to Nayak family of village Tilasingi for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- in the year 1949. The said Harihar again purchased half share of the self-same joint property in the year 1955 through registered sale deeds (Exts. 2, 3, 4 and 5) from co-sharers for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/ -. It is alleged in the plaint that the consideration for the above transactions had been paid from time to time in between 1984 and 1955. The said Harihar instituted Title Suit No. 144 of 1957 in the Court of the Munsif, Aska, for partition and separate possession of his three-fourth share. During the pendency of the said suit, he executed a registered agreement (Ext. 19) dt. 26-10-1959 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land on receipt of Rs. 10,000/ -. The partition suit was compromised on 9-5-1960. The agreement (Ext. 19) was treated as a conveyance and the registering authority realised the stamp duty from the plaintiff and, therefore, title with respect to the suit property passed to the plaintiffs under Ext. 19. But the plaintiffs by way of abundant caution got another sale deed (Ext. 17) on 20-5-1965. Ever since the date of execution of Ext. 19, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land paying rentals therefor and in the settlement operation, plaintiffs' names have been recorded in the revenue papers. A portion of the suit land, however, was wrongly recorded in the names of defendants 4 to 14 and being emboldened by the said erroneous entry, the defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs and also dug a drain through the suit land and, therefore, the present suit for the reliefs as aforesaid has been filed by the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 4 to 14 have remained ex parte.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 contested the suit denying the allegations made in the plaint and denied plaintiffs' title and possession. According to them, the so-called agreement (Ext. 19) had been obtained by one Nityananda Panigrahi, an Advocate, in the names of the plaintiffs, who are his wife and sons, without any consideration and without reading over the document to Harihar. It was further averred in the written statement that Ext. 17 had in fact not been executed by Harihar and the same had been manufactured on blank cartridge paper containing the signature of Harihar who had left those papers with his lawyer Mr. Panigrahi. Harihar was in possession of the suit land as owner till 1970 when he sold a portion of the suit land under Exts. B and E dt. 6-10-1970 and mortgaged another portion under Ext. F dt. 17-10-1970 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 and since then defendants 1 to 3 are in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4a. On these pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as five issues and has recorded the following findings : - (i) The impugned sale deed (Ext. 17) is not genuine but a manufactured document (and as such not) binding on the defendants who are (successors-in-interest) of Harihar Misra. (II) The impugned sale deed has been duly stamped. (III) The plaintiffs have failed to prove that Harihar had taken Rs. 4,700/- from them for purchasing the suit land. (IV) So far as Ext. 19 is concerned, Mr. Panigrahi is in the eye of a party to the agreement although the plaintiffs are actually vendees to it; that Mr. Panigrahi being a lawyer of Harihar Misra from 1952 to at least 1962 stands in a fiduciary relationship with Harihar Misra capable of dominating him; and that the trans