S RANGARAJU Vs. SULOCHANA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The Plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for a decree directing the registrar to register a document.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant (appellant) and the other three defendants constitute a joint family, that the defendants 1 to 3 and the first defendant as guardian of the fourth defendant executed a sale deed on 15-6-1961 for Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, that the first defendant received RS. 3,500/- at the time of the execution and the balance was reserved to be paid at the time of he registration. The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property. The first defendant had come with the scribe from dindigul to Alanganallur for executing the sale deed and the plaintiff paid Rs. 320/- to the first defendant for the purchase of the Stamp papers. After the first defendant executed the sale deed he demanded the consideration and the plaintiff stated that the consideration would be paid only after the execution of the sale deed by defendants 2 and 3. Immediately the first defendant went with the sale deed to Dindigul and returned the same evening. He represented that the defendants 2 and 3 also have signed the sale deed. Then the consideration of Rs. 3,500/- was paid to the first defendant (appellant ). Thereafter the defendants evaded to register the document. Then the plaintiff presented the document before the Sub-Registrar, Alanganallur for compulsory registration. But the Sub-Registrar passed an order on 13-9-1961 refusing to register the document. The plaintiff then filed an appeal to the District Registrar under Section 77 (73?) of the indian Registration Act. The appeal was dismissed after an enquiry on 25-6-1962 and therefore the plaintiff filled the present suit.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 filed a written statement and the guardian of the fourth defendant adopted the same. As far as the first defendant is concerned he has stated that he executed the document thinking that it was a lease deed. As far as the other defendants are concerned, they denied execution of the document.