ABDUL KALAM AZAD Vs. ANANTHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein filed a suit as plaintiffs in O.S. No.17 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Vridhachalam, seeking a direction to the Ponnadam Sub Registrar to register the Sale Deed executed on 21.11.1988.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:- THE immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint originally belonged to the first defendant Thayarammal. On behalf of the minor plaintiffs, their mother Haniffa Bi on the one side and the first defendant on the other side entered into an agreement to sell the property on 31.03.1988, for a sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/-. As per the said agreement, the first defendant received a sum of Rs.38,200/- from the guardian of minors. In the said agreement, it was agreed that the mortgage in favour of one Duraisamy Padayachi for Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/-, amounting to Rs.26,140/-, shall be discharged by the plaintiffs. THE balance of Rs.60,660/-, out of the total consideration, shall be paid on or before 31.12.1988 and the sale deed shall be executed. In pursuant to the sale agreement, the first defendant executed the sale deed dated 21.11.1988 in favour of the plaintiffs. THE receitals in the sale deed would show as to how the first defendant received the major portion of the sale consideration in several ways from the plaintiffs and those recitals also would show that the remaining sale consideration of Rs.15,660/- was agreed to be received by the first defendant before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. After scribing the sale deed dated 21.11.1988, it was duly signed by the first defendant in the presence of the witnesses. Indeed, the first defendant's son Thambusamy also signed it as one of the attesting witnesses. Hence, the first defendant was duty bound to help the plaintiffs to get the sale deed registered. However, when the first defendant was asked by the Haniffa Bi to help her to get the sale deed registered, the first defendant deferred it. Hence, Haniffa Bi presented the sale deed for compulsory registration at Pennadam Sub Registrar's office. Subsequently, when the Sub Registrar sent a summon to the first defendant, the first defendant did not respond to the notice. THErefore, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document on 28.12.1988.

(3.) LEARNED Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, after considering the case of both sides by adducing the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit vide Judgement dated 23.03.2005. The unsuccessful defendants filed an appeal by preferring A.S.No.56 of 2005, before the learned Principal District Court, Cuddalore. After considering the rival submissions of both sides, the Lower Appellate Court, by its judgment dated 05.04.2006, reversed the decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the present Second Appeal.