SRINIVASA NAICKER Vs. RANGASWAMI NAICKER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant is the appellant. The first respondent Rangaswami Naicker filed O.S. No. 327 of 1970 for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for an injunction or in the alternative for delivery of possession. The suit property is of an extent of 6 cents and it is the common case mat belonged ordinary to the second defendant. Under Ex. A -1 it was sold by the second defendant on 8th August 1968 in favour of the plaintiff. But at the instigation of the first defendant be evaded registration and therefore, it had to be compulsorily registered on 19th February 1969. The defendants colluded and brought about an ante -dated sale deed Ex. B -2, purporting to have been executed a little earlier namely 3rd August 1968 in favour of the first defendant and the same was registered on 30th November 1968. In view of the fact that Ex. B.2 did not convey any title, the title got by the plaintiff under Ex. A -1 should be upheld. This in short were the allegations in the plaint.

(2.) The defence was that Ex. A -1 was not executed by the second defendant, but his signature was obtained with a representation that he had to be an attestor for some other sale. Ex. B.2 was not ante -dated and therefore Ex. B.2 should be preferred to that of Ex. A -1.

(3.) The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal in A.S. No. 99 of 1973, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court and held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed.