Unregistered sale deeds cannot confer title or possession; only duly registered documents are valid under law.

JUDGMENT

The appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of recovery of possession. The trial Court decreed the suit and the First Appeal preferred by the defendants was allowed by the First Appellate Court by reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.

2. Short facts pleaded in the plaint :-

2.1. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are wife and husband. The suit property is the absolute property of the 1^st plaintiff. She constructed a house in the suit site out of her own funds which she earned out of milk vending business. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 15 years. As the 2^nd plaintiff was managing the family, the property tax of the suit property was originally assessed in his name and later it was assessed in the name of the 1^st plaintiff.

2.2. On 15.07.1983, the defendants came to the suit property and took up an argument with the plaintiffs and asked them to vacate. It is claimed by the defendants that the 2^nd plaintiff has affixed her thumb impression in blank papers. The 1^st defendant taking undue advantage of the friendship he had with the 2^nd plaintiff, compelled him to consume country arrack and got his thumb impression in blank papers when he was under the influence of alcohol. The defendants have also taken some house tax receipts from the 2^nd plaintiff.

2.3. On 18.07.1983, the 1^st plaintiff sent a legal notice to the 1^st defendant calling upon him to return the papers illegally obtained from her husband. The 1^st defendant received the notice, but he did not comply with the demand. As the 1^st and 2^nd defendants joined hands and tried to evict the plaintiffs from the suit property, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction. As the defendants have dispossessed the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit by force, the plaint has been amended by including the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.

3. The written statement of the 1st defendant in brief:-

3.1. The 1^st plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property. The 1^st plaintiff did not have any means to acquire the property. The 2^nd plaintiff had occupied the suit property and put up a superstructure out of his own funds and started to live there. The 1^st plaintiff was not doing any milk vending business. The 2^nd plaintiff was the milk vendor. The 1^st plaintiff was living in the suit property only as a dependant of the 2^nd plaintiff. The house tax assessment was made only in the name of the 2^nd plaintiff.

3.2. It is denied that the house was assessed in the name of the 1^st plaintiff. The 2^nd plaintiff's legally wedded wife belongs to Aarambakkam and she got separated from him. So he started to live with the company of some other woman and thereafter, with the 1^st plaintiff.

3.3. On 03.05.1983, the 2^nd plaintiff conveyed the suit property to the 1^st defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.1,100/- and executed an unregistered sale deed and on the same day, he delivered the possession of the suit property also. It is false to state that the thumb impression of the 2^nd plaintiff was obtained by forcing him when he was in an intoxicated mood and he also handed over the tax receipts to the defendants.

3.4. After taking possession, the 1^st defendant has renovated the damaged superstructure. The 1^st defendant has performed his part of contract and he is entitled to the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Hence, his possession has to be protected. The 2^nd defendant has filed his written-statem