JUDGMENT
A. Subbulakshmi, J.
1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 156 of 1981 is the appellant in S.A.No. 1931 of 1983. Defendant in O.S.No. 206 of 1981 are the appellants in S.A.No. 1820 of 1984.
2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 156 of 1981 (S.A.No. 1931 of 1983) is as follows:
On 5.1.1978, the defendant has duly executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for valuable consideration and the defendant received Rs. 100 towards the educational expenses of his sons and agreed to receive the balance of sale price before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. The attestors also attested the document. The defendant has consented to be present in the Registration Office on 10.1.1978 and consented to attach the market value statement. The defendant did not come to the Registration Office on 10.1.1978. The plaintiff sent a registered letter on 11.1.1978 and the defendant did not receive the same. So, the plaintiff presented the document for compulsory registration, since the plaintiff felt suspicious about the conduct of the defendant. Since the defendant did not turn up the Sub-Registrar refused to register it. So, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Registrar in A.P.No. 3 of 1978: The District Registrar passed an order refusing to direct the registration of the document since he was not able to ascertain the willingness of the defendant to attach the statement of market value and as the requirement of stamp law and the Rule thereunder were not complied with. Hence, the plaintiff has come forward with this suit for registration of the document.
3. The defendant has filed written statement contending that he had not executed any sale deed and had not received any amount and he also never agreed to receive any balance amount before the Sub-Registrar. He also denies the presence of the attesting witnesses.
4. The suit was tried by the District Munsif, Jayamkondan and it was decreed. In the first appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
5. Aggrieved against that judgment and decree, the present Second Appeal S.A.No. 1931 of 1983 is filed by the plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 206 of 1981 filed that suit for declaration and possession of the suit property. The suit property belonged to the deceased Subramania Pillai. The suit property is a portion of house and house site while the contiguous other portions belong to agnaters of Subramania Pillai. The other portions belonged to one Arumugham Pillai. After his death, his share devolved on the legal representatives under a will, Subramania Pillai leased out the property on rent to the first defendant. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from Ganapathy and his heirs, who is the son of Subramania Pillai. The plaintiff issued notice to the first defendant to surrender possession. The first defendant denied the title of the plaintiff and falsely put up title in favour of the second defendant in respect of the suit property. The second defendant has no title or any right over the suit property.
7. The first defendant filed written statement contending that he has not agreed with Subramania Pillai for rent and he has agreed to pay rent of Rs. 15 per month to the second defendant. This defendant has knowledge about the sale in favour of the plaintiff only after receipt of notice from the plaintiff, The Second defendant has filed O.S.No. 1338 of 1978 objecting the sale and that suit is pending and the suits to be tried at one time.
8. The second defendant filed written statement contending that Ganapathy son of Subramania Pillai executed a sale deed in favour of this defendant on 5.1.1978. Since he did not turn up for registration, O.S.No. 1338 of 1978 is filed for compulsory registration and is pending. The plaintiff has created fraudulent sale deed and it is not valid. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief asked for.
9. This suit was tried by the District Munsif, Jayamkondam and it was dismissed. In the first appeal, the judgment and decree of the lower court was set aside and the suit was decreed.
10. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree, S.A.No. 1820 of 1984 is filed by the defendant.
11. The substantial questions of law that were framed at the time of admission of S.A.No. 1931 of 1983 are as follows:
(i) Whether the annexing of a statement under Rule 3(1)(A) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 is a condition precedent for registration of a sale deed and whether the court could refused the relief of compulsory registration sought for by the plaintiff even though he has paid the full stamp duty payable under the document?
(ii) Whether the lower court is justified in law in rejecting the relief of compulsory registration on the only ground that the annexure under Rule 3(1)(A) of the said Rules is not attached to the sale deed?
The substantial questions of law framed in S.A.No. 1820 of 1984 as follows:
(i) Whether the lower appellate court omitted to construe and mis-construed the material evidence on record on the question of genuineness of Ex.A-1?
(ii) Whether the lower appellate court has not appreciated and applied the principle to find out whether the second defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of Ex.A-11 assuming that it is true and genuine?
12. Since the facts and circumstances involved in S.A.No. 1820 of 1984 are connected with S.A.No. 1931 of 1983 this second appeal is taken up along with S.A.No. 1931 of 1983 for disposal. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiff hereinafter referred to is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 156 of 1981 (S.A.No. 1931 of 1983) and the defendant is the defendant in the same suit.
13. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has duly executed Ex.A-1 sale deed for valuable consideration and received Rs. 100 and agreed to receive the balance of sale consideration of the time of registration and also consented to be present in the Registration office on 1.0.1.1978 and produce the statement of market value for the suit property, but, he did not come to the Registration Office and so, the plaintiff has sought for compulsory registration which was refused by the Sub-Registrar and in the appeal also it was refused by the District Registrar and so, the plaintiff in entitled to compulsory registration of the document. The defendant denies the execution of the document and also denies with regard to receipt of any amount.
14. When the document was presented before the registering authority, he refused registration of the document. On appeal, the District Registrar has passed order in Ex.A-3. Under Ex.A-3, the District Registrar has passed an elaborate order and has found that the counter filed by the counter petitioner states that the signatures were obtained by coercion and that tantamounts to admission of execution of Ex.A-1 by the counter petitioner and the provisions of Sections 19 to 21, 23 and 32 of the Registration Act have been complied with. But, the Sub-Registrar has refused registration on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 3(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 and no appeal has been preferred by the applicant. It is also found in Ex.A-3 that as the counter petitioner has not appeared and he has been declared ex pane, it was not possible to ascertain whether the executant of Ex.A-1 was willing to attach a statement of marked value and as the requirement of Stamp Law and the Rules thereunder have not been complied with by the executant of the suit document, he refused to direct the registration of Ex.A-1. So, it is evident from the order of the District Registrar in Ex.A-3 that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, Rule 3(1-A) of the said rules reads as follows:
If an instrument relates to only one item of property and that property is a building or if an instrument relates to more than one items of property and one or more such items is or are a building or buildings, the following particulars shall be specified in respect of the building or each of such buildings:
(i) the type of building, i.e., whether tiled or reinforced concrete or Madras terraced or otherwise;
(ii) the number of storeys in the building;
(iii) the plinth area of each floor or storeys in the building with area of each storey or floor or storey;
(iv) the nature of structure of the building specifying whether the walls are built in brick and cement brick and lime mortar or otherwise;
(v) the year of construction of the building;
(vi) the kind of materials used in the construction of the building;
(vii) a brief description of the nature of the sanitary, electrical and other fittings in the building and their quality;
(viii) the size and depth of the well if any in the property; and
(ix) any other special feature affecting the value of the building.
Rule 3(2-A) reads as follows:
If the market value of the property as required by Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Central Act II of 1899) is not set forth in the instrument where the property dealt with therein is a single item or the statement giving the market value of each property separately as required by Sub-rules (I) and (I-A) above is not attached to the instrument, the registering officer shall refuse the registration of the document.
This rule envisages that the party who is executing the document shall attach separate statement duly signed by him and if that statement is not attached to the instrument duly signed by the party executing the instrument, the Registering Officer shall refuse the registration of that document. Since the defendant did not appear before the Sub-Registrar’s Office on the date of registration and as he has not given the statement duly signed by him giving the market value of the property as per Rule 3(1-A) the Registering Officer has rightly refused registration of that document. The District Registrar has also correctly passed the order stating that as the requirement of Stamp Law and the Rules thereunder have not been complied with by the executant of the suit document, he refused to direct registration of that document, Ex.A-1. The provisions of Rule 3(1-A) is mandatory to be complied with and as the defendant himself was absent and did not give the statement and as there was no authenticity with regard to that document the Sub-Registrar has correctly refused registration of that document. The first appellate court has correctly negatived the claim of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit by allowing the appeal. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court does not warrant any interference. Therefore, the Second Appeal No. 1931 of 1983 is liable to be dismissed.
15. In view of the above finding in S.A.No. 1931 of 1983 that the appellant therein is not entitled to registration of the document as per the direction of the District Munsif and the appellant has no manner or right over the suit property and as she is not entitled to compulsory registration of the document, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 206 of 1981 (S.A.No. 1820 of 1984) is entitled to the declaration and possession asked for. The lower appellate court has correctly found and allowed the first appeal by decreeing the suit. Hence, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
16. In the result, both the second appeals are dismissed. No costs.