(Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.158 of 2004 dated 12.12.2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai and to decree the suit by allowing this appeal.)

1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.158 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.158 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. The respondents are defendants in that suit. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the appellant/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property; for recovery of possession from the defendants 1 and 2; for recovery of rent arrears from the 1st defendant and for mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant to pass an order transferring the property tax assessment to the name of the plaintiff.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The brief facts are as below:

                     (a) The case of the plaintiff (appellant herein):

                     The suit property was originally purchased by one Pethaiya from its owner, A.R.Syed Ibramsha, by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.01.1978, and a building was constructed. He let three portions of that building for rent to the 1st defendant Saroja and one Ganesan and Soundarrajan. Since the said Pethaiya has been out of station frequently, he appointed one Munusamy as his power agent. The tenants Ganesan and Soundarrajan vacated the tenancy premises. The 1st defendant Saroja and her daughter, the 2nd defendant herein, continued as tenants and paid rent. In the meanwhile, Pethaiya sold the suit property to his son Elango on 20.01.1994 and title deeds along with the power deed were also handed over to him. The said Elango also executed a power of attorney dated 15.03.1996 in favour of one Alagu to maintain the property. The 1st defendant had paid a monthly rent of Rs.600/- to Alagu, the power agent of Elango. The municipality house tax assessment was transferred in the name of Elango on 11.10.1999. The power agent of Elango, namely Alagu, sold the suit property to the plaintiff on 14.10.1999. The parent deeds of the suit property and power deeds were handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the house tax and electricity connection were changed to the plaintiff’s name. The 1st defendant continued the tenancy and has paid rent of Rs.750/- to the plaintiff from 14.10.1999 till October 2001 and has not paid rent from November 2001. The plaintiff asked the 1st defendant to vacate the rental premises. The 1st defendant demanded Rs.50,000/- by using his political influence. The plaintiff refused the said demand and issued a legal notice. The 1st defendant sent a reply with falsehoods. The plaintiff filed RCOP.No. 27 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Pudukottai, against the 1st defendant to vacate the building. The 1st defendant contended that she is the wife of Pethaiya and the 2nd defendant is their daughter, and that Pethaiya executed a Will in their favour in respect of the suit property. The defendants had filed the suits in O.S.No.21 of 2000 and O.S.No.186 of 2000 on the averments that they have a right over the suit property and obtained orders therein. The plaintiff is not a party in those suits and hence, the orders passed therein will not bind the plaintiff. The said RCOP.No.27 of 2002 was dismissed with liberty to file an appropriate case before the civil Court. The defendants 1 and 2 created false documents in order to grab the property. The 1st defendant has created false tax receipts with the assistance of the 3rd defendant. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the reliefs.

                     (b) The case of the defendants 1 & 2 (respondents 1 & 2 herein):-

                     The averments regarding the tenancy of the defendants and non-payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff are denied. The marriage between the 1st defendant and Pethaiya took place on 23.10.1977. The 1st defendant and her husband purchased the suit plot and an adjacent plot No.158, and they constructed a house on the suit property. As her husband Pethaiya frequently visited Singapore for business, the 1st defendant let the ground portion to a tenant and she used to reside in the upper portion. The said Pethaiya bought a minibus bearing registration number TNP 1689 in the name of the 1st defendant and ran a bus service in the name of the 2nd defendant, Puvanambiga Transport. G.Munusamy was working as a manager from 02.06.1983 to 26.10.1984. Since Munusamy misappropriated money, he was terminated. Having enraged the dismissal from the service, the said Munusamy created a false documents in favour of the plaintiff. The said Pethaiya executed a Will dated 15.05.1994 in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property. Later, he died on 02.05.1997. The Will came into effect and the defendants are owners of the suit property. The plaintiff have no right over the suit property. Hence the suit is to be dismissed.

                     (c) The 3rd defendant remained ex-parte before the trial Court.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings of both parties.

                     (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

                     (2) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

Following Additional Issues were framed by the trial Court:-

                     1)Whether the Will dated 15.05.1994, executed by Pethaiya in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is correct?

                     2)Whether the judgments obtained in O.S.No.21/2000 and 186/2000 will not bind the plaintiff?

                     3)Whether it is correct that the defendants 1 and 2 are wife and daughter of Pethaiya?

                     4)Whether it is correct that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff?

                     5)Whether it is correct that the suit property is entitled to the vendor of the plaintiff?

6. Before the trial Court, on the plaintiff's side, two witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.38 were marked. On the defendants' side, the 1st defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.214.

7. On appreciation of evidence and the arguments made by either parties, the trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff has not proved her title over the suit property and dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 have made rival arguments.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that there is no dispute that the plaintiff's vendor’s father, namely Pethaiya, had purchased the suit property from its original owner, Syed Ibramsha, under Ex.A.3 registered document dated 22.01.1978. He leased out the suit property to the 1st defendant and other tenants. The other tenants vacated the rented building. The 1st defendant and her daughter, the 2nd defendant herein, are in possession of the property as tenants. The said Pethaiya Pillai sold the suit property to his son Elango on 20.01.1994 through Ex.A.10 registered sale deed. The said Elango was residing in Singapore and in order to administer the suit property, he executed Ex.A.11 power of attorney dated 15.03.1996 in favour of one Alagu. The said Ex.A.11 power deed was duly attested by the Notary Advocate of Singapore and then it was duly registered by the District Registrar of Tiruchirappalli. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said power of attorney, Alagu, by virtue of Ex.A.14 registered sale deed dated 14.10.1999. As the defendants have not paid rent regularly, the plaintiff filed a petition in RCOP.No.27 of 2002 for evicting the defendants before the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Pudukottai. The defendants have taken support of orders passed in their suit in O.S.Nos.21 of 2000 and 186 of 2000. The orders passed therein will not bind the plaintiff as she is not a party to those proceedings. The defendants claimed title by way of producing the Will, and hence, RCOP.No.27 of 2002 was dismissed with liberty to approach the civil Court. The plaintiff has proved her title by producing vital documents Ex.A.3, title deed of Pethaiya, Ex.A.10 sale deed executed by Pethaiya in favour of Elango, Ex.A.11 power of attorney executed by Elango in favour of one Alagu and Ex.A.14 sale deed executed by Alagu under power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further argued that the defendants have not produced any document to prove their title and they have not even produced the alleged Will and proved the same as per law. The defendants raised a plea that the aforesaid Ex.A.3, Ex.A.10, Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.14 are forged documents. The defendants have filed a written statement in 2005 questioning the documents and they have not taken any steps to cancel those documents. The defendants are tenants in the suit property and they were aware of all the transactions. Yet they have not taken any steps within three years as contemplated under Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Hence, there is no merit regarding the allegation of fake documents. Since the plaintiff’s documents are registered one, no oral evidence is admissible to contradict them under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiff has proved her title through Ex.A.3, Ex.A.10, Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.14 documents. The defendants raised a plea that Ex.A.10 and Ex. A.14 contain the signature of the seller only, and the signature of the purchaser is not available. This plea is incorrect. The requirement of the signatures of both the seller and purchaser was introduced as per Section 34A of the Registration Act in 2001 and the same came into force from 14.04.2001. Ex.A.10 sale deed in favour of Elango by Pethaiya was executed on 20.01.1994 and Ex.A.14 sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by power of attorney of Elango on 14.10.1999. So, the plea of the defendants has no base.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further argued that the defendants claim that the 1st defendant is the wife of Pethaiya and the 2nd defendant is their daughter and that the said Pethaiya executed an unregistered Will dated 15.05.1994 in their favour in respect of the suit property. They have not produced the Will before the trial Court and proved the same as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The trial Court has not answered regarding the Will, which is an improper judgment of the trial Court. The plaintiff has registered sale deeds to show her title and substantiated possession by producing house tax and water tax receipts under Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.22. The defendants have no document of title and they cannot prove title through oral evidence. They were in possession only as tenants and that too without paying any rent. The defendants managed to obtain patta in their names, however, it is settled law that a patta is not a document of title. The defendants specifically alleged that one Munusamy was appointed as power of attorney by Pethaiya in respect of the suit property and he was also the manager of the Transport Company run by Pethaiya and that the said Munusamy was dismissed from service in 1984 as he swindled funds of the Transport Company and to wreak vengeance, he fabricated the records. This plea is not correct as there is no complaint made against the said Munusamy regarding this issue. Moreover, the Pethaiya sold the property to his son through Ex.A.10 on 20.01.1994 and thereafter, he was alive till 08.09.1999. The defendants have not challenged the same. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Elango through his power agent Alagu, by virtue of Ex.A.14 registered sale deed. So, the plaintiff has proved her title by producing valid documentary evidence, but the defendants have not proved their title except their possession, which is only under tenancy. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. The findings of the trial Court are not correct. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal may be allowed.

13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/defendants 1 and 2 has placed arguments that originally the suit property was purchased by Pethaiya Pillai. The 1st defendant is his wife and the 2nd defendant is his daughter. The said Pethaiya Pillai did not execute any deed in favour of anybody. The said Pethaiya Pillai was doing transport business. One Munusamy was employed as a manager in his office. The said Munusamy was dismissed in 1984 and, to wreak vengeance, he fabricated records and created a forged power deed and thereafter a sale deed relating to the suit property. Though the defendants claimed right on the basis of a Will, they did not press the right under the Will as they were not able to produce the same. The defendants are in possession of the suit property and the same is admitted. But the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession, if so, she must prove her title. The plaintiff produced documents under Ex.A.10 sale deed standing in the name of the vendor/Elango and Ex.A.14, a sale deed standing in the name of the plaintiff. The purchasers in those deeds have not put their signatures in the deeds. Ex.A.10 was signed unilaterally by Pethaiya Pillai and also Ex.A.14 unilaterally by the alleged power agent Alagu. The respondents/defendants stoutly denied the said documents. Moreover, no witness was examined to prove the said deeds. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence and clearly held that those deeds are not supported by consideration. Ex.A.10 was executed by the father in favour of his son without sale consideration and the same is a sham transaction. When a document is not supported by consideration, the said document is a void document as per the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act.

14. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 has relied on the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1097 in the case of Kewal Krishan /v/ Rajesh Kumar & Ors., in which it is held on paragraph Nos.18 & 19 as follows:

                     “18. .......A sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and the remaining part can be made payable in future. The payment of price is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TP Act. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executed without payment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will not effect the transfer of the immovable property.

                     19. ......Hence, the sale deeds will have to be held as void being executed without consideration. Hence, the sale deeds did not affect in any manner one half share of the appellant in the suit properties. In fact, such a transaction made by Sudarshan Kumar of selling the suit properties on the basis of the power of attorney of the appellant to his own wife and minor sons is a sham transaction.

15. The learned counsel has further argued that Ex.A.4 is fabricated by Munusamy. The stamp paper for Ex.A.4 was purchased at Thanjavur and the same was executed at Pudukottai and so, it was created solely for issuance of Ex.A.5 advocate notice dated 31.03.1992. The plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendants in the suit property. The plaintiff has to prove her ownership in respect of the suit property and it settled position by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and reliance is placed on the citation reported in (2024 INSC 518) in the case of The State of Punjab & Ors vs. Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through LRs. in which it is held on paragraph Nos.30 & 31 as follows:

                     “30. It is settled law that in a suit for possession, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. As per Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof as to ownership of a property lies on the person challenging the ownership of the person in possession.

                     31. Section 110 of Evidence Act is produced as follows:

                     “110.Burden of proof as to ownership- When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.”

                     32. This Court had summarized the provision in Chuharmal v. CIT (supra) as follows:

                     “6. …Section 110 of the Evidence Act is material in this respect and the High Court relied on the same which stipulates that when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the onus of proving that he is not the owner, is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. In other words, it follows from well settled principle of law that normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession.”

16. The plaintiff has not produced any other record except Ex.A.14, the sale deed and the said alleged sale deed contains only the signature of the vendor. But there is no evidence to prove that the signature is that of the vendor alone. The reason for not signing by the vendees in Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.14 is not at all explained. Moreover, the attesting witnesses or identifying witnesses of Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.14 were not examined. So those deeds are not proved as required by law. Hence, the said deeds are created by fictitious persons and are forged one. The defendants 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the original title holder, Pethaiya and the defendants are in possession of the suit property as legal heirs of Pethaiya. The plaintiff has filed the suit only to grab the suit property from the defendants. The Court has to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence based on rulings relied upon by both sides. The findings of the Court below need not be set aside. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.

17. On hearing both, the points for considerations are:

                     (1) Whether the appellant/plaintiff has proved her title over the suit property?

                     (2) Whether the Ex.A.10 sale deed stood in the name of Elango, Ex.A.11 power of attorney in the name of Alagu and Ex.A.14 sale deed in the name of the plaintiff are forged and created ones and whether the same have been proved by the defendants?

                     (3) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is not sustainable in law?

                     (4) Whether the appeal is to be allowed?

18. Point Nos.1 to 4:-

Upon consideration of arguments and evidence of both sides, it is clear that the suit property was purchased by one Pethaiya by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22.01.1978 and the certified copy of that sale deed is produced as Ex.A.3. The defendants have not raised any objection. So, there is no dispute in it. It is also not in dispute that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has pleaded that she has purchased the suit property under Ex.A.14, a registered sale deed from the power agent of his vendor, Elango, who purchased the property from his father Pethaiya. The plaintiff further stated that the defendants were tenants in the suit property at the time of purchase and since they refused to vacate the premises, she filed rent control proceedings. The defendants claimed in that RCOP that they have a right over the suit property by way of a Will executed by Pethaiya Pillai. Hence, in the rent control proceedings, the parties were advised to approach the civil Forum. Though the parties placed documents before the trial Court, the trial Court has not given a specific finding regarding the Will, but has given a strange finding, which is not sustainable in law. However, now it is fairly conceded and argued by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that though the defendants claim a right over the property by way of Will executed by Pethaiya as they are his wife and daughter, they have not pressed that right under the Will since they were not able to produce the Will. Hence, the evidence regarding the Will need not be appreciated again. So, the question of legal heirs of Pethaiya Pillai is irrelevant to the facts of this case.

19. From the perusal of the material records and evidence, it is clear that the defendants are in possession. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of her title and recovery of possession. If so, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for defendants, the plaintiff must prove her ownership U/s.110 of the Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff’s specific case is that the original owner Pethaiya Pillai sold the suit property to his son by way of Ex.A.10 registered sale deed dated 20.01.1994. The said Elango has executed a power of attorney dated 15.03.1996 in favour of one Alagu. The power of attorney is marked as Ex.A.11. A perusal of Ex.A.11 it is clear that Elango was residing in Singapore, so he executed the same, and it was duly notarized by the advocate of Singapore, and thereafter, it was duly registered before the Registrar of Tiruchirappalli as per certificate U/s.40 of the Indian Registration Act found therein. The plaintiff’s case is that she purchased the suit property from her vendor, Elango through his power of attorney, Alagu and produced a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1999, which is marked as Ex.A.14. While the plaintiff claims title over the suit property, she has to produce clear, cogent and independent oral and documentary evidence to prove her title. In this case, the plaintiff has clearly proved her title over the suit property by producing registered sale deed Ex.A.14 dated 14.10.1999 along with parent deed Ex.A.10 dated 20.01.1994 stood in the name of her vendor Elango and original power deed dated 15.03.1996 under Ex.A.11 executed by Elango in favour of one Alagu. Based on the same, her name was mutated in the revenue records and she has been paying property taxes, as seen from Ex.A.16 to Ex.A.22 and also, her name was changed in the electricity service connection as per Ex.A.23.

20. As per Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff has to discharge the initial burden of proving title by placing the registered sale deeds. From perusal of the records, the plaintiff has produced the original registered sale deeds of her vendor and herself as Ex.A.10 and Ex.A.14 and the original power deed of her vendor as Ex.A.11. These documents are registered documents. To prove those transactions, the plaintiff has examined her husband as P.W.1 and the said power of attorney, Alagu as P.W.2. Their evidence affirmed the sale transaction. Hence, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff has proved her title over the suit property.

21. As per Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 115 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), along with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, a registered document has strong legal presumption that the official act has been regularly performed and that the registered document is validly executed. It is a settled principle of the Hon’ble Apex Court that a registered document carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness and it cannot be casually disregarded as nominal or sham. Registration is not a mere procedure, but it is a solemn act that imparts a high degree of sanctity to the document.

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently held in its verdict in Hemalatha (D) by LRs. /v/ Tukaram (D) by LRs. & Ors. case in Civil Appeal No.6640 of 2010 dated 22.01.2026 reported in 2026 INSC 82 as follows:

                     “31. It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a “sham”. Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353 1, Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through Lrs.and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 727 2, and Rattan Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300 3, this Court.

                     “...... There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.''

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has adopted the above principles in various cases having frequently and previously so held in Prem Singh & Ors. vs. Birbal & Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 and Jamila Begum (D) Thr. LRs. /v/ Shami Mohammed (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 72 and Rattan Singh /v/ Nirmal Gill reported in (2021) 15 SCC 300 and recently in Hemalatha (D) by LRs /v/ Tukaram (D) by LRs, reported in 2026 INSC 82. In view of the above principles, whenever a party challenges a registered power of attorney or sale deed on ground of fraud, the burden of proof is strictly on the challenger as per Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court has reaffirmed the said principle that a party setting up a plea of forgery must prove the same and the document holder cannot be asked to prove the negative. This was observed in Aandaperumal /v/ Lakshmiammal case in A.S(MD)Nos.23 of 2017 and 18 of 2018 dated 21.06.2024. This settled principle was further reaffirmed by this Court in its judgment in the case of Kalyani Sundari v. Sudhagar in S.A(MD)No.88 of 2019 dated 06.01.2025. So, when the registered documents are alleged to be forged, the burden of proof is strictly on the challenger.

24. Keeping the above settled principles in mind, the records of the case are perused. The defendants challenge the aforesaid deeds by contending that one Munusamy was the manager of the transport business run by Pethaiya Pillai and, that since the said Munusamy was dismissed from service for misappropriation, he created these forged documents. The defendants pleaded that Ex.A.10, Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.14 are fraudulent and were created by one Munusamy to wreak vengeance, as he was dismissed by Pethaiya Pillai from the administration of the transport office. On perusal of records, the defendants have not examined any witness to disprove those documents nor have they taken any steps to prove their allegation of forgery. D.W.1, in her evidence, clearly deposed that





25. From the above evidence, it is very clear that the defendants have not initiated any criminal proceedings for the fraud said to have been committed by one Munusamy. Furthermore, there is no such person available named Munusamy. The document in Ex.A.10 shows the signature of Pethaiya Pillai. The defendants claims to be the wife and daughter of the said Pethaiya Pillai, if so, they would definitely known the signature and handwriting of the said Pethaiya Pillai. If it is so, when the defendants pleaded forgery, they ought to have proactive steps, such as applying for a forensic handwriting expert opinion as required by Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The material records clearly show that the defendants have not taken such steps. They have miserably failed to prove the plea of forgery.

26. From perusal of records and arguments, the defendants raise an objection that the transaction in Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.14 were not supported by sale consideration and that the plaintiff has not proved the sale consideration by examining any of the attesting witnesses, so the deeds are not valid one. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Raziya Begum & Ors. /v/ Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors. case in Civil Appeal No.7225 of 2011 in 2026 INSC 814, held that an actual payment of the entire sale consideration at the time of execution is not necessary for completion of the sale; and the remedy against the non-payment of the balance consideration would be to file a money recovery suit rather than seeking a cancellation of sale deed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in its judgment and the same is extracted hereunder.

                     “10. In Vidhyadhar (supra), it was held so in Paragraph Nos.36, 37 and 38 with respect to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:-

                     “36. The definition indicates that in order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e., transfer of all rights and interests in the properties which are possessed by that person are transferred by him to another person. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a “price paid or promised or part-paid and part- promised”. Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The words “price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised” indicate that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of sale deed is not a sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs 100, the sale would be complete.

                     37. There is a catena of decisions of various High Courts in which it has been held that even if the whole of the price is not paid, the transaction of sale will take effect and the title would pass under that transaction. To cite only a few, in Gayatri Prasad v. Board of Revenue [1973 All LJ 412] it was held that non-payment of a portion of the sale price would not affect validity of sale. It was observed that part payment of consideration by the vendee itself proved the intention to pay the remaining amount of the sale price. To the same effect is the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sukaloo v. Punau [AIR 1961 MP 176 : ILR 1960 MP 614].

                     38. The real test is the intention of the parties. In order to constitute a “sale”, the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property and they must also intend that Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ the price would be paid either in praesenti or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recital in the sale deed, the conduct of the parties and the evidence on record.”

                     11.Dahiben (supra) also, while interpreting Section 54 of the Act, held that actual payment of entire sale price at the time of execution of sale deed is not an essential condition for completion of sale. When a sale deed is registered, even upon part payment of the sale price, title would pass to the transferee. The non payment of remaining part of the sale price would not invalidate it and the remedy would be to recover the balance sale consideration, but not cancellation of sale deed for non-payment of balance sale consideration.''

However, in this case, the vendor has not denied the receipt of the sale consideration and there is no document to show that there was no payment towards sale consideration. Hence, this argument that the sale is invalid simply because the payment of sale consideration is not proved, has no merits.

27. The next contention raised by the defendants is that in Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.14 only the vendor signed while the purchaser did not sign, thereby rendering them invalid. This argument is untenable. Because even the documents Ex.B.205 to Ex.B.211 produced by the defendants to show purchase in the name of the 1st defendant bear only the signature of the vendor. Moreover, the learned counsel for the plaintiff explained that the requirement of signatures of both seller and purchaser was introduced as per Section 34A of the Registration Act in 2001 and the same came into force on 14.04.2001. Therefore, the defendants' contention must be rejected, as there is no substance in the absence of any contra material or argument from the defendants' side. Hence, the argument of the defendants is not accepted.

28. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the plaintiff has proved her title by producing original sale deeds of her vendor and herself as Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.14. As per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, when the sale deeds are registered, the title has validly been conveyed to the purchaser by the seller. So, the plaintiff has sufficiently proved her title over the suit property. The defendants have not proved their plea of forgery against the registered documents. It is an admitted fact that the defendants are in possession of the suit property, and they denied that they are not tenants, they have no legal right to remain. Therefore, they are liable to hand over the possession. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as sought for in the suit. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by both sides, and after considering the arguments and citations relied on by both, the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove her title. For all these reasons, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is not sustainable in law and the same needs interference by way of this appeal. Thus, the appeal succeeds. The points are answered accordingly in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

29. In the result, this Appeal Suit is allowed. No costs. The judgment and decree dated 12.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.158 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, are set aside. The suit in O.S.No.158 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai is decreed as prayed for by the plaintiff. The defendants 1 & 2 are directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of three months.