Shan Maun Mull And Anr. vs Madras Building Company on 24 November, 1891
It has been held in the case of Shan Maun Mull v. Madras Building Company 15 M. 268 at p. 277, that registration is not of itself notice. There is no evidence that the plaintiffs had any notice of the sale-deed to the 1st defendant. One attestor (Seetharama Aiyar) has described himself as a mahajan. He is not examined in the case and there is nothing to show who he is; and no value can be attached to that attestation. There is, therefore, nothing to show that 1st defendant's possession was or can be deemed to be adverse to the plaintiffs'. There is no evidence that anything was done by the 1st defendant to indicate to the plaintiffs that he holds possession adversely for 12 years prior to the time that the supplemental plaintiffs were brought on record.