Madras High Court
V.Perumayee vs S.Rajammal on 30 January, 2025
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V. Thamilselvi
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Second Appeal Nos. 200 & 863 of 2024
and
CMP.Nos.6896 & 27389 of 2024
---
V.Perumayee ... Appellant in S.A.No.200/2024
S.Rajammal ... Appellant in S.A.No.863/2024
Versus
1.S.Rajammal
2.S.Murugesan .. Respondents in S.A.No.200/2024
1.V.Perumayee
2.S.Murugesan .. Respondents in S.A.No.863/2024
PRAYER in S.A.No.200 of 2024 : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100
of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated
19.04.2023 made 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.
PRAYER in S.A.No.863 of 2024 : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100
of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree passed in
A.S.No.5 of 2014 on the file of Subordinate Court, Attur (Salem District)
dated 19.04.2023, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
1\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
For Appellant inS.A.No.200/2024 : Mr.D.Selvaraju
For Appellant inS.A.No.863/2024 : Mr.K.R.Masilamani
For Respondents in S.A.No.200/2024 : Mr.K.R.Masilamani
For Respondents in S.A.No.863/2024 : Mr.D.Selvaraju
COMMON JUDGMENT
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
2\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
3\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on:of transferring
26/03/2025 07:31:03 pmthe
) patta. They asserted that
4\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
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, the 2nd defendant was
examined as D.W.1, and another witness was examined as D.W.2, but no
documents were marked.
9. Considering both side submissions and evidence on record, the
learned trial court framed three issues, with the primary issue being: "Whether
the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance as prayed for?"
10. After considering the evidence, the learned trial judge held that
Ex.A1 was an unregistered sale deed, however, P.W.1’s evidence established
that she had entered into a sale transaction with the defendants, but the 1st
defendant was found to be of unsound mind, indeed the evidence of P.W.2
proved that the 2nd defendant received Rs.90,000 as sale consideration and
signed the document, although the document was unregistered, its execution
was proved through the attesting witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3) and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
5\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
document writer (P.W.5). another attester, P.W.4, confirmed that the document
was signed in the presence of the parties. P.W.6, the wife of the 1st defendant
and daughter-in-law of the 2nd defendant, testified that the original documents
were handed over to the plaintiff by her mother-in-law (the 2nd defendant).
Furthermore, the defendants did not deny their signatures on Ex.A1. The
evidence of D.W.2 also supported the plaintiff’s case. Considering all these
aspects, the trial court concluded that Ex.A1 was executed upon receipt of
Rs.90,000/- in the presence of witnesses. Since the defendants failed to
register the sale deed despite being served with a notice, and since they did not
lodge any police complaint regarding alleged fraud, therefore, the court held
that they were bound to execute the sale deed. The provisions of the
Registration Act were deemed inapplicable to this case. Accordingly, the trial
court decreed the suit, directing the defendants to execute the sale deed as
prayed for.
11. Challenging the trial court’s findings, the 2nd defendant preferred
A.S. No. 5 of 2014 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Attur. In that appeal,
the 1st defendant, Murugesan, was represented as an unsound person by his
guardian / wife Palaniammal. Consequently, the second appeal was preferred
by the 2nd defendant alone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
6\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
12. The learned first appellate judge analyzed the evidence on record
and framed the following issues: (i).Whether the plea of the 2nd respondent
regarding an unsound state of mind can be considered at the appeal stage
without prior pleadings? (ii).Whether the plaintiff's claim is legally valid based
on Ex.A1, an unregistered sale deed? (iii).Whether the findings of the trial
court are liable to be set aside?
13. Considering the evidence on record, as well as the provisions of
Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act and Section 53 of the Transfer of
Property Act, the learned first appellate judge held that Ex.A1 is an
unregistered document through which the plaintiff claims possession of the
suit property, however, under Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, valid
registration is required for such a claim. Therefore, Ex.A1 is not legally valid
for claiming possession, but it can be received as evidence in a suit for specific
performance.
14. By relying on the ratio laid down in the judgment of R. Hemalatha
Vs. Kasthuri in C.A. No. 2535/2023 in SLP No. 14884 of 2022, Supreme
Court of India, dated 10.04.2023, the learned first appellate judge observed
that an unregistered document can be admitted as evidence of a contract in a
suit for specific performance,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded as per Section
on: 26/03/2025 47) of the Registration Act.
07:31:03 pm
7\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
Accordingly, the appellate court held that Ex.A1 was duly executed by the
defendants and could be considered for granting relief of specific performance
but not for possession.
15. Additionally, the appellate court concluded that the 1st defendant
was not of unsound mind at the time of executing Ex.A1. However, applying
principles of equity, the court directed the defendants to execute the sale deed
for 20 cents of the property while permitting them to retain the remaining 16
cents. As a result, the appeal was partly allowed in favor of the plaintiff and
partly in favor of the defendants.
16. Challenging these findings, the appellant in S.A. No. 200 of 2024
contends that the learned first appellate judge erred in modifying the decree
passed by the trial court by reducing the extent of land granted for specific
performance without any legal basis. While the appellate court accepted the
trial court’s findings regarding Ex.A1 in its entirety, the appellant argues that
the modification was unwarranted. Therefore, the appellant prays for the 1st
appellate court’s findings to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Second
( Uploaded appeal07:31:03
on: 26/03/2025 S.A.No.200
pm ) of 2024 was admitted
8\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
on 25.03.2024 with the following substantial questions of law.
"(a) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in
modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court while no
infirmity or illegality was found in the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, as regard to the findings of the Trial Court?
(b) Whether the First Appellate Court is right in
reducing the extent of the land covered under the sale deed on
equity, while accepting the validity of the contract in entirety
and the right of the appellant/plaintiff to get the sale registered
in accordance with the sale deed Ex.A1?
(c) Whether the First Appellate Court have jurisdiction
to direct the parties (plaintiff and defendants) to amend the
sale deed Ex. Al to an extent of 20 cents only, while the Trial
Court has found that the contract of sale entered between the
parties is for an extent of 36 cents?"
18. Furthermore, the 2nd defendant, Rajammal, preferred S.A. No. 863
of 2024, challenging the appellate court’s decision on the following grounds.
i) The Courts below ought to have considered that the suit has been filed
for specific performance and permanent injunction based on the unregistered
sale deed dated 09.07.2009 (Exhibit A1).
ii) The Courts below failed to appreciate that the unregistered sale deed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
9\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
dated 09.07.2009 (Exhibit Al) is inadmissible in evidence under Section 17 of
Registration Act
iii) The Courts below ought to have considered that the sale deed dated
09.07.2009 (Exhibit A1) at the least can be used only for collateral purpose but
the present suit for specific performance is filed based on the said unregistered
sale deed
iv) The Court below ought to have considered that the sale deed dated
09.07.2009 (Exhibit Al) ought to have been impounded under Section 35 of
Stamp Act in order to be received in evidence
v) The Court below failed to consider that Plaintiff is not entitled to
claim the relief of permanent injunction based on a unregistered document
under Section 53(a) of the Transfer of Property Act
Vi. The Court below failed to consider that the suit is improperly framed
as she has not exhausted her relief for compulsory registration under Section
77 of the Registration Act
Vii. The Courts below ought to have considered that the Plaintiff has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
10\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
exhausted his statutory remedy that was available to her to register the
document within 4 months under the Registration Act but hastily filed the
present suit within 3 months of alleged sale deed
Viii. The Courts below ought to have considered that the Plaint was
returned twice directing the Plaintiff to approach the Registering Authorities
but the same was not complied with.
ix. The Courts below ought to have considered that the Plaintiff has
failed to prove the passing of consideration and there is no specific plea that a
sum of Rs.90,000/-was handed over to the Defendants through PW2
x. The Courts below erred in not considering that the value of suit
property is about Rss.450/- per square feet even as per the evidence of PW2,
who is a close relative and neighboring land owner.
xi. The Court below failed to consider that the Plaintiff has not
explained as to why the sale deed dated 09.07.2009 (Exhibit A1) was executed
for a sum of Rs.90,000/-when the value of the suit properties is worth about
Rs. 70,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
11\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
xii. The Court below failed to consider that the equitable relief of
specific performance can be granted only if the Plaintiff has approached the
courts with clean hands
19. This Court admits S.A. No. 863 of 2024 on the following substantial
questions of law.
A) Whether the Courts below justified in decreeing the
suit for specific performance and permanent injunction based
on sale deed dated 09.07.2009 (Exhibit A1) which is
unregistered and insufficiently stamped and barred under
Section 17 of Registration Act and Stamp Act.
B) Is not the suit for specific performance maintainable
without exhausting the relief of compulsory registration under
Section 77 of Registration Act?
C) Were the court below correct in shifting the burden
of proof on the Appellant who is an illiterate woman and
whose thumb impressions were obtained in blank stamp
papers under misrepresentation?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
12\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
20. The appellant in S.A. No. 200 of 2024 is the plaintiff, challenging
the findings of the learned First Appellate Judge. The appellant contends that
modifying the judgment of the trial court, despite no infirmity or illegality
being found in it, is erroneous and should be set aside. Additionally, the First
Appellate Judge erred in reducing the extent of land covered under the alleged
sale deed on the grounds of equity while simultaneously accepting the contract
between the parties in its entirety. Furthermore, the said court had no
jurisdiction to amend the sale deed to an extent of 20 cents only. Therefore, the
appellant prays for the findings to be set aside as they are unsustainable under
the law.
21. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in S.A.
No. 863 of 2024 argues that the appellant, who is the second defendant, is an
illiterate woman. He contends that she was taken to the Registrar’s Office by
the plaintiff, a close relative, and was made to sign certain papers under the
false pretense of changing the patta. It is alleged that the plaintiff and her
husband obtained her signatures by drafting the sale deed without her
knowledge or consent. The plaintiff later fabricated a story that the second
defendant had agreed to sell the property due to financial necessity, which,
according to the appellant, is entirely false. Furthermore, the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
13\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
asserts that the value of the property exceeds Rs.75 lakhs, whereas the alleged
sale deed was fraudulently drafted for only Rs.90,000/-. This, he claims, was
done to usurp the property. He argues that the courts below failed to properly
appreciate the evidence on record and erroneously granted relief in favour of
the plaintiff. Hence, he prays that the findings of the courts below be
reconsidered. The learned counsel further contends that, even assuming the
sale deed was drafted, it was the duty of the plaintiff to present the document
before the registering authority the next day. If the Registrar found that the
presence of the second defendant was necessary, only he had the authority to
summon her.
22. To support his arguments, the learned counsel relied on Sections 32,
35, 36, 71, 73, and 74 of the Registration Act.
“ 32. Persons to present documents for registration.
-Except in the cases mentioned in ¹[sections 31, 88 and 89],
every document to be registered under this Act, whether such
registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at
the proper registration office, -
(a) by some person executing or claiming under the
same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming
under the decree or order, or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
14\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
(b) by the representative or assign of such person, or
(c) by the agent of such person, representative or
assign, duly authorised by power-of-attorney executed and
authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
35. Procedure on admission and denial of execution
respectively.-
(1)(a) If all the persons executing the document appear
personally before the registering officer and are personally
known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the
persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the
execution of the document,
(b) if in the case of any person appearing by a
representative, assign or agent, such representative, assign or
agent admits the execution, or
(c) if the person executing the document is dead, and his
representative or assign appears before the registering officer
and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the
document as directed in sections 58 to 61, inclusive.
(2) The registering officer may, in order to satisfy himself
that the persons appearing before him are the persons they
represent themselves to be, or for any other purpose
contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in his office.
(3)(a) If any person by whom the document purports to be
executed denies its execution, or
(b) if any such person appears to the registering officer to
be a minor. an idiot or a lunatic, or
(c) if any person by whom the document purports to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
15\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
executed is dead, and his representative or assign denies its
execution, the registering officer shall refuse to register the
document as to the person so denying, appearing or dead:
Provided that, where such officer is a Registrar, he shall
follow the procedure prescribed in Part XII:
36. Procedure where appearance of executant or witness
is desired.- If any person presenting any document for
registration or claiming under any document, which is capable of
being so presented, desires the appearance of any person whose
presence or testimony is necessary for the registration of such
document, the registering officer may, in his discretion call upon
such officer or Court as the [State Government] directs in this
behalf to issue a summons requiring him to appear at the
registration office, either in person or by duly authorized agent,
as in the summons may be mentioned, and at a time named
therein.
71. Reasons for refusal to register to be recorded. -(1)
Every Sub-Registrar refusing to register a document, except on
the ground that the property to which it relates is not situate
within his sub-district, shall make an order of refusal and record
his reasons for such order in his Book No. 2 and endorse the
words "registration refused" on the document; and, on
application made by any person executing or claiming under the
document shall, without payment and unnecessary delay, give
him a copy of the reasons so recorded.
(2) No registering officer shall accept for registration a
document so endorsed unless and until, under the provisions
hereinafter contained, the document is directed to be registered.
73. Application to Registrar where Sub-Registrar refuses
to register on ground of denial of execution.-(1) When a Sub-
Registrar has refused to register a document on the ground that
any person by whom it purports to be executed, or his
representative or assign, denies its execution, any person
claiming under such document, or his representative, assign or
agent authorised as( Uploaded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis aforesaid, may,07:31:03
on: 26/03/2025 withinpm thirty
) days after the
16\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
making of the order of refusal, apply to the Registrar to whom
such Sub-Registrar is subordinate ir order to establish his right
to have the document registered.
(2) Such application shall be in writing and shall be
accompanied by a copy of the reasons recorded under section
71, and the statements in the application shall be verified by the
applicant in manner required by law for the verification of
plaints
74. Procedure of Registrar on such application. In such
case, and also where such denial as aforesaid is made before
a Registrar in respect of a document presented for
registration to him, the Registrar shall, as soon as
conveniently may be, enquire-
(a) whether the document has been executed;
(b) whether the requirements of the law for the time
being in force have been complied with on the part of the
applicant or person presenting the document for registration,
as the case may be, so as to entitle the document to
registration.”
23. Based on the above legal provisions, he asserts that the civil court
had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit, and the relief granted by the trial
court is not legally maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for the findings to be
set aside, as they are perverse in nature.
24. Considering both
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis submissions,
( Uploaded it ispm evident
on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 ) that the plaintiff's
17\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
husband and the second defendant's husband are brothers. The first defendant
is the son of the second defendant. These relationships are undisputed. It is
also an undisputed fact that the property originally belonged to the second
defendant’s husband, and upon his demise, it devolved upon his legal heirs,
namely, the first defendant son (D1) and the second defendant wife (D2).
25. The plaintiff’s case is that the second defendant agreed to sell the
property and, upon this agreement, she immediately received Rs.90,000/-, after
which the sale deed was drafted. There was no written sale agreement, and all
terms were settled orally between the parties. Accordingly, the sale deed was
drafted, and both the plaintiff and defendants, along with witnesses, proceeded
to the Registrar’s Office.
26. In the presence of the witnesses, the second defendant allegedly
received Rs.90,000/- and agreed to register the document on 08.07.2009.
However, due to time constraints, the registering authorities could not
complete the registration that day. The defendants allegedly assured
cooperation in registering the sale deed the following day but later evaded the
process. This led the plaintiff to issue a notice, which was ignored by the
defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
18\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
27. Upon perusal of Ex.A1, it is evident that it is an unregistered draft
sale deed. The plaintiff is claiming possession of the suit property based on
this document. However, there is no proof that possession was handed over to
her immediately after the alleged execution of the draft sale deed. She has not
produced any document to show that she is in possession of the property. In
fact, the plaintiff’s own witness, PW4, deposed that he was unaware of the
plaintiff’s possession of the property. Another witness also stated the same.
Moreover, the plaintiff herself admitted that she has not produced any
document to establish that she was in possession of the suit property.
28. Admittedly, the plaintiff owns land adjacent to the suit property, yet
she has not produced any document to prove her possession of the disputed
property. Regarding the execution of Ex.A1, as per the contention of the
second defendant, Rajammal, she was unaware of the said document and had
signed it merely for the purpose of transferring the patta.
29. The burden lies heavily on the plaintiff to establish that Rajammal
offered to sell the property to her and agreed to execute the sale deed
immediately without fixing any specific time. To substantiate this claim, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
19\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
plaintiff relied on witness testimonies. PW2 is the husband of PW1 and
naturally supported her case. Admittedly, he is also the brother of the second
defendant’s husband.
30. The second defendant contended that her son, the first defendant, is
of unsound mind and had no knowledge of the alleged draft sale deed. His
thumb impression was allegedly obtained forcibly. During cross-examination,
PW2 gave an evasive reply regarding the mental state of the first defendant.
Being a close relative, PW2 would have known about the mental capacity of
his brother’s son. However, he claimed that he was unaware of the first
defendant’s mental condition suggests that his testimony is untrustworthy and
that he has suppressed real facts.
31. Moreover, the evidence of DW5, a document writer, confirms that
the first defendant is mentally challenged. It appears that PW2 and his wife,
PW1, misrepresented facts to the defendants in an attempt to fraudulently
acquire the property for a lesser price of Rs. 90,000/-. PW2 himself stated that
the per square feet rate is Rs.500/-, considering that his own property is
adjacent to the disputed land. Therefore, PW2’s own testimony indicates that
the property’s actual value exceeds Rs. 70,00,000/-, whereas Ex.A1 reflects a
sale consideration of only Rs. 90,000/-. This discrepancy strongly suggests
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
20\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
that the document was drafted with ulterior motives to fraudulently acquire the
property from the defendants, who are illiterate and incapable of
understanding the situation.
32. Under such circumstances, D1 and D2 were surrounded by witnesses
closely known to the plaintiff’s family and were made to sign Ex.A1.
However, the courts below failed to appreciate these facts properly. When
there is an improper appreciation of evidence, this court is empowered to
interfere. Accordingly, the findings of the courts below that Ex.A1 was proved
by the plaintiff through witnesses are illegal and liable to be set aside.
33. Even assuming that the sale deed was drafted, if the defendants had
indeed refused to cooperate in registering the document, the plaintiff ought to
have approached the registering authorities as per the procedures established
by law. The plaintiff claims that she prepared the document and, due to lack of
time, it was not registered. She further alleges that a receipt was signed for
registration, but notably, the first defendant did not sign it. If the plaintiff had
truly attempted to register the document and the defendants had refused to
cooperate, she should have followed the procedures outlined under Sections
32, 35, and 36 of the Registration Act. These provisions clearly set forth the
procedures for document registration. If necessary, the Registering Office has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
21\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
the authority to issue summons. Therefore, if the defendants were unwilling to
register the document, the plaintiff ought to have approached the registering
authorities instead of filing a civil suit.
34. For the sake of argument, even if Ex.A1 was executed with the
consent of D1 and D2, the plaintiff ought to have approached the registering
authority rather than the civil court. Therefore, in the absence of an existing
remedy, filing a suit for specific performance to register the document is not
maintainable in law. Accordingly, Question of Law B is answered.
35. The plaintiff failed to prove the execution of Ex.A1, yet the lower
courts erroneously shifted the burden onto the defendants to establish the
alleged execution of the draft sale deed. This is incorrect and liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, Question of Law C is answered.
36. Upon perusal of Ex.A1, it is clear that the document is unregistered
and insufficiently stamped. The plaintiff claims possession of the property
through this document. However, since she is asserting ownership and interest
over the property, the document requires mandatory registration under Section
17 of the Registration Act. Since Ex.A1 is not a valid document under law, the
plaintiff is not entitled to claim relief for specific performance. The trial court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
22\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
however, erroneously granted relief, which is liable to be set aside.
Furthermore, the learned first appellate judge improperly modified the decree
by directing the defendants to execute the sale deed for 20 cents, which is also
legally unsustainable. Accordingly, Question of Law A is answered. In both
appeals, the second respondent was questioned via video conference but was
unable to respond to the court’s queries. This demonstrates that he is mentally
unsound. Moreover, before the first appellate court, the first defendant was
mentioned in the cause title as an unsound person represented by a guardian by
plaintiff in her appeal A.S.No.200 of 2024. This cause title was not
challenged. Therefore, it stands established that the first defendant is a
mentally challenged person and should have been represented by a lawful
guardian without which, any signature obtained from him is legally invalid.
37. Thus, the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands,
nor has she proven that Ex.A1 was executed with the defendants’ full consent.
Furthermore, the first defendant, being of unsound mind, was not properly
represented by a lawful guardian as required by law. Therefore, in all aspects,
Ex.A1 is neither true nor valid. The findings of the learned first appellate
judge, modifying the decree, are unjustifiable. Accordingly, Questions of Law
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
23\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
A, B, and C are answered.
38. The appeal filed in S.A. No. 200 of 2024 is dismissed. S.A. No. 863
of 2024 is allowed. The findings rendered by the courts below are set aside.
Accordingly, the suit is dismissed as devoid of merit. Consequently, the
connected the Miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
30.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
rri
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Attur.
2.The District Munsif, Attur.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
24\25
S.A. Nos.200 & 863 of 2024
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri
Second Appeal Nos. 200 & 863 of 2024
and
CMP.Nos.6896 & 27389 of 2024
30.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/03/2025 07:31:03 pm )
25\25
