NATARAJAN Vs. VEERAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S.No.105 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Madurai is the appellant in the second appeal. THE respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of two items of properties, namely, two cents in R.S.No.79/9 and 1 acre, 39 cents with well in R.S.No.51/2 situate in Vanjinagaram Village in Melur North Panchayat Union within Dindigul registration District on the following averments: Suit items originally belonged to the family of the appellant. THE properties went out the family pursuant to some court sale in E.P.No.227 of 1978 in O.S.No.121 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Melur. THE court auction purchaser one Meyyappa Chettiar sold the properties to the respondent on 23.11.1971 for R.1,500. THE appellant had been nurturing a desire for a long time to get back the properties by means fair or foul. Item No.1 though registered as nanja where few crops were raised was a house site. As regards item No.2, the appellant had properties on the west and the north and there was also copious supply of water in the well in item No.2. THE appellant wanted the respondent to sell the properties to him. Respondent refused. On 3.11.1981, while the respondent was doing agricultural operations, the appellant with his henchmen interfered in the possession of the respondent necessitating his filing O.S.No.607 of 1981 before District Munsif's Court, Melur. He also filed I.A.No.727 of 1981 and obtained an order of injunction against the appellant. At the time of filing the present suit, injunction was still in force. Because of this, the appellant set up his tenant one Mahalingam to give trouble to the respondent. A complaint was given by Mahalingam under Prevention of Atrocities (Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe) Act before the Special Magistrate's Court, Madurai. This petition was dismissed on 19.9.1982. In the suit O.S.No.607 of 1981, the appellant had been taking time for filing written statement and ultimately filed the written statement setting up an agreement of sale dated 17.3.1980 between the respondent and the appellant. Those averments in the written statement were all false. He stated in the written statement as if the respondent had agreed to sell the properties to the appellant for Rs.3,350 and on 17.3.1980 a sum of Rs.1,350 was paid as advance. THE appellant also set up a fraudulent sale deed dated 28.12.1981 as if it had been executed by the respondent. It was recited in the sale deed that on the date of execution of the sale deed, Rs.1,500 was paid and the balance of Rs.500 was agreed to be paid on the date of registration. THE market value in the sale deed was given as Rs.6,800 and the property was to be sold for only Rs.3,350 which itself would show that the sale set up on 28.12.1981 was fraudulent. THE signature of the respondent had been forged and the appellant's own men were made to attest. THE appellant appeared to have presented the document for registration before the Sub Registrar on 13.4.1982. A notice was issued to the respondent who appeared before the Sub Registrar and he denied having executed any document. THE respondent had no need to sell any property. THE Sub Registrar having refused, the appellant had applied to the District Registrar, Dindigul. THE respondent was summoned and before the District Registrar, the recital in the documents was concealed from his sight and only portions containing the respondent's signatures were shown and the respondent had to admit his signature on the basis of which the document was registered. Merely because the respondent had admitted his signature in the document, it could not be considered to be a true document. THE application given by the respondent to the District Registrar for comparison of his admitted signature with his signature in the sale agreement and the sale deed was rejected. Again in O.S.No.607 of 1981, in the counter, in the I.A. and in the written statement, it was stated that possession had been handed over to the appellant on the date of the agreement. This would show that the agreement and the sale deed were not true documents. No notice demanding registration was given by the appellant. THE value given was very low. THE total value would be Rs.15,000. No proper enquiry was conducted by the District Registrar. Possession of the properties had always been with the respondent. Since the appellant was seeking rights in the suit property, the present suit had been filed for declaration of title or in the alternative for cancellation of sale deed dated 28.12.1981.

(2.) THE appellant resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows: Since the suit properties were ancestral properties of the appellant, he was anxious to get them back and negotiated with the respondent and pursuant to such negotiation on agreement was entered into on 17.3.1980. Rs.1,350 was paid as advance and the balance of Rs.2,000 was agreed to be paid within two years and the sale to be completed. Possession was given to the appellant on the same day. At the instigation of his son Veerakali, the respondent filed a suit before the District Munsif's Court, Melur and obtained an interim injunction. THEre was a panchayat thereafter and the respondent agreed to complete the sale. THE sale deed was executed on 28.12.1981. On the date of execution of sale deed, the respondent was paid Rs.1,500. He also agreed to receive the balance of Rs.500 at the time of registration, He further agreed to withdraw O.S.No.607 of 1981. But at the instigation of his son, refused to register the document and to withdraw the suit. Neither was done. Having accepted before the District Registrar that he signed the sale deed, it was not open to the respondent to go back on that. Only on his admission, the document was registered. THE respondent was estopped. THE suit itself was not maintainable against an order directing registration. THE civil court had no jurisdiction to review the same. Possession was given to the appellant, but on the basis of the injunction obtained in O.S.No.607 of 1981, he was trying to interfere with the appellant's possession. THE well in the second item of the suit property was in a dilapidated condition. THE price fixed for the suit property was correct and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) MR.V.Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent had admitted his having executed the document sale deed marked as Ex.B-4 before the District Registrar and the District Registrar having found on enquiry that the document had been validly executed, had directed registration and this question cannot be reopened by means of a suit in the civil court. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had admitted his having executed the document before the District Registrar and it was not open to him to plead the case of forgery before the civil court or to attempt to prove that the signatures in the sale deed were not his. Learned District Judge has proceeded on misconception in law and facts. He had relied on the opinion of handwriting expert and finding that the signatures in the sale deed were not the respondent's