AYYAKKANNU PADAYACHI DECEASED Vs. BOORASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur in A.S. No. 2 of 1983 dated 6.2.1984, confirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur in O.S. No. 1549 of 1980 dated 26.8.1982. The plaintiff is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

(2.) THE suit was filed for declaration and injunction on the ground that the suit properties are his self acquired properties having been purchased by him out of his own earnings and the defendants being the sons had no right in the suit properties, that the defendants have purchased properties separately from their own earnings and they are in enjoyment of those properties and that they are trying to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of his properties and therefore he has filed this suit.

(3.) RELIANCE has also been placed on the Judgment of S.S. Subramani, J reported in 1998 (1) L.W. page 507. (Arumughachary Nadar v. Deivanaiammat). In the said decision, the learned Judge interpreted the expression "collateral purposes" with reference to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The proceedings arose out of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and by virtue of the document in question, the tenant tried to prove the character of his possession as to whether his possession was that of a tenant or that of a mortgagee. The learned Judge held that if he wanted to prove his possession as a mortgagee, the said purpose cannot be treated as a collateral purpose as defined under Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 7A. A perusal of Ex.B-1 shows that it was a mere record of understanding reached between the parties earlier, pursuant to a panchayat. It can only be stated to be a record of an agreement reached between the parties, after earlier negotiations. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the document does not require registration.