Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Now it is to be seen whether his 1/3 share in the suit property has been conveyed in favour of 2nd defendant. Ex.B-3 is the document registered Parasalai at Sub-Registrar Office in Kerala State, which is not the place having the jurisdiction of the suit property, but in the sale deed Ex.B-3 another property within Parasalai jurisdiction situated Karumanoor Desam 200 Jenmam, Survey No.149/5, out of Acre 8 and 94 cents in north portion, http://www.judis.nic.in 6 acre and 17 cents in east portion cents, out of 45 cents and out of 20 cents 10 Sq.ft site was shown as second item of the property in Ex.B-3 and sale deed is executed. So, the defendants would contend that Parasalai property is also sold under Ex.B-3 and as such, the Parasalai Sub-Registrar office has jurisdiction to register Ex.B-3 which includes suit property as well as the property within Parasalai Jurisdiction. It is pertinent to note that Ex.B-2 is the document relating to purchase of property in item-II of Ex.B-3 and the same was purchased by the first defendant on the same date of Ex.B-3 i.e., 13-01-1994. The Ex.B-3 document Number is 12542/1994 and Ex.B-2 is 12541/1994 and both the documents are registered at Parasalai Sub- Registrar Office. So Ex.B-2 is the earlier document. It seems that item-II in Ex.-B-2 was registered earlier and Ex-B-3 was registered subsequent to Ex- B-2, but contrary to the same, in the trial court judgment Ex.B-2 document number is mentioned as 2186 whereas Ex.B-3 document is mentioned as 1931. Thus, the trial court held that the first defendant has no valid title in respect of Survey Number 149/5 property. The trial court finding in this aspect is not correct and the correct registration numbers are 12541 and 12542 of 1994 for Ex.B-2 and B3 respectively. The date and time of registration is not a criteria for passing on title under a document, but the date and time of execution of a document is the main criteria, hear Ex.B-2 and B-3 are executed on one and the same day and Ex.B-2 was registered earlier than Ex.B-3. So it cannot be said that no title passed in respect of II- http://www.judis.nic.in item of B-3 property, to first defendant at the time of execution of Ex.B-3 document.

17. Now it is to be seen whether 2nd item of B-3 property was available at the place mentioned. In this aspect the VAO of Parasalai viz. Liyakath Alikan was examined as PW-2 and as per his evidence, no 200 village number is available to Karmanoor Desam and in Parasalai village only upto 50 numbers were available to Karmanoor Desam and in Karmanoor Desam total extent available for Survey Number 149/5 is 30 cents only and no extent of 8 acres 94 cents is available in S.No.149/5 and particularly Karmanoor Desam 200 jenmam, S.No.149/5 out of 8 acres 94 cents northern side, out of 6 acres 17 cents eastern side, 45 cents property was not available. Another VAO-DW-2 was examined and he deposed contrary to PW-2 and he deposed that the total extent for S.No.149/5 is 233.2 acres. So the evidence of PW-2 and DW-2 are contradictory to each other and on the side of the defendants, they produced Ex.B-14 copy of sale deed of Bakiyanathan Nadar dated 06-03-1993 and Ex.B-15 is the A-register of the Neiyatrankarai, Parasalai Village, DW-1 admits that Ex.B-15 will not reflect true version, further Ex.B-14 was marked subject to an objection that the same should have been marked through the party concerned. Here Ex.B-14 was marked through DW-1 who is not party to Ex.B-14 and when contra evidence is available between PW-2 and DW-2 in respect of 2nd item of http://www.judis.nic.in Ex.B-3 property and item-II of Ex.B-3 property was purchased by the 1st defendant on 13-12-1994 under Ex.B-2 and on the same day Ex B-2 property as well as suit property was sold by 1st defendant in his individual capacity for Ex-B-2 property and as a power of attorney of Vallinayagam in respect of suit property under Ex.B-3 dated 13-12-1994 in favour of 2 nd defendant, it is the duty of the defendants to prove the existence of Ex.B-2 property through the party to the document under Ex.B-14. But Party to Ex.B-14 document was not examined to prove the existence of Ex.B-2 property. Further, the parties to the suit property are in Tirunelveli District, but they went to Parasalai on 13-12-1994 and purchased Ex.B-2 property by 1st defendant and on the same day it was sold as a next document along with suit property under Ex.B-3, would go to show that the properties under Ex.B-2 was not in existence and fictitious property was purchased under Ex.B-2 in order to invoke the jurisdiction of Parasalai SRO, for the purpose of execution of Ex.B-3 and so when Parasalai has no jurisdiction to register document in respect of suit property since item-II of Ex.B-3 property is considered to be fictitious property and so Ex.B-3 document though it could be taken into the right of Vallinayagam to the extent of 1/3 share only, that too has not been conveyed in favour of the 2nd defendant and that is why Vallinayagam along with his two brothers executed sale deeds Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of plaintiffs and so the plaintiffs have got title over the suit http://www.judis.nic.in property. Though the trial and first appellate court found Ex.B-1 power of attorney is not valid and Ex.B-2 and B-3 also not valid on a different ground. I find that Ex. B-1 is valid only to the extent of 1/3 share in the suit property and that too has not been legally conveyed to the 2 nd defendant and so the execution of sale deeds Ex.A1 and A2 by Murugan, Esaiki Muthu and Vallinayagam are the valid documents and the plaintiffs have got title over the suit property and the suit property is the vacant site and so the dictum that title follows possession will come into play and thus it is held that the possession is also with the plaintiffs. As far as Ex.B-4 mortgage deed is concerned, when title is passed in favour of the 2nd defendant, Ex.B-4 will not give any title to the 2nd defendant. Whatever be the transactions under Ex.B-4, will not prove the title of the 2nd defendant.