RAMASWAMI PILLAI Vs. RAMASAMI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is sought to be preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram at Madurai in A. S. No. 104 of 1955 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Satur in O. S. No. 272 of 1950.

(2.) The facts are short. The suit property belonged to the joint family of the second defendant and his son Kanga Arumugham Pillai. Sale deeds were got executed from the wastrel son Arumugham in favour of defendants 1 and 3 during the lifetime of the father falsely stating in the documents that the father is insane. It has been held that the sale deed executed by the father in favour of the Plaintiff is valid and therefore the half share of the father goes out of the picture. In regard to the rival sale deeds executed by the son in favour of defendants 1 and 3, the first defendant purchased the suit property under Ex. B-4 dated 17-6-1950, which was registered on 26th June 1950. D. Ws. 2, 3 and 7 spoke to the execution and passing of consideration thereunder. The sale deed in favour of the third defendant by the son under Ex. B-15 is dated 14-61950 and it was registered compulsorily on 12-10-1950. The contention of the first defendant was that Ex. B-15 was ante-dated and brought into existence subsequent to Ex. B-4. This contention on acceptable and relevant evidence has been upheld by both the Courts below. The learned District Munsif held that inasmuch as the sale deed in favour of the first defendant was executed anterior in point of time and in point of registration, that sale should prevail in so far as the son's share is concerned against the sale in favour of the third defendant. The learned subordinate Judge on appeal upheld this contention after examining two other alternatives viz., that the sale deed in favour of the first defendant was executed anterior in point of time to that of the third defendant and secondly, on the assumption that the sale in favour of the third defendant was anterior in point of time, and came to the conclusion, as the learned District Munsif, viz., that the first defendant's sale will prevail and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The sections of law bearing upon this point are section 47 of the Indian Registration Act and section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The scope of section 47 of the Registration Act has been succinctly set out in the AIR Commentaries on the Indian Registration Act. Second Edition, at pages 350 and 352 and supplement thereto brought up to 30-6-1957 page 23 and on the Transfer of Property Act. Third Edition, page 655 and supplement thereto brought up to 30-6-1957 page 37 as follows: