A sale deed not presented for registration within the four-month period stipulated under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, is contrary to law and does not confer valid right or title to the property.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.259/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.472/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU AND ETC.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court and consequently, decreeing the suit.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff is asserting title over the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 26.05.2011. The plaintiff claims that he has purchased the property from one K.Savitha under registered sale deed dated 26.05.2011. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the property was owned by defendant Nos.3 to 7, who sold the property through GPA holder - defendant No.1, in favour of one K.Savitha under registered sale deed dated 18.03.2011 vide Ex.P.2. The said K.Savitha, in turn, has sold the suit schedule property in favour of the present plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 26.05.2011 vide Ex.P.1.

4. The present suit is filed by alleging that defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant No.1 have created a fraudulent sale deed dated 25.11.2010 registered on 21.05.2012 and based on the said sale deed, defendant No.1 has illegally constructed a building in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the present suit.

5. Defendant No.1, who is a contesting party and defendant Nos.2 and 9 though appeared through their counsel did not choose to file written statement while defendant Nos.3 and 8 remained absent and were placed exparte. The Trial Court in absence of contest only on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced the sale deed dated 21.05.2012 in favour of defendant No.1 has drawn adverse inference against the plaintiff and has come to the conclusion that the contention of the plaintiff sale deed of his vendor - K.Savitha was in earlier point of time cannot be determined for want of sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 dated 21.05.2012.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.59/2017. Before the Appellate Court, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents. The said application was allowed and the plaintiff was permitted to produce title documents of defendant No.1. The said documents were taken on record by permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence under Order 41 Rule 28 of CPC. The sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 was marked as Ex.P.1.

7. The Appellate Court being a final fact finding authority has independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence and has also taken cognizance of the additional evidence led in before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court on examining Ex.P.13, which is a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1, found that it was executed on 25.11.2010 and the same was registered on 21.05.2012. The Appellate Court referring to these two relevant dates was of the view that under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short 'Act'), the said document was not presented within a stipulated period of four months from the date of its exec