Judgment This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment in A.S.No.97 of 2004 confirming judgment of trial Court in O.S.No.40 of 1999 decreeing plaintiffs suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Unsuccessful defendant is the appellant. 2. Respondents/plaintiffs filed suit O.S.No.40 of 1999 for declaration and permanent injunction. They claimed right and title on the basis of Ex.A1 sale deed dated 30.11.1998, executed by Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty. It is the case of the respondents that the suit property measuring an extent of 60 cents and 22 cents in R.S.Nos.41/3 and 41/5 respectively in Ninnaiyur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk was purchased for a total sale consideration of Rs.22,960/- under the Ex.A1 sale deed dated 30.11.1998 and that from the date of purchase, they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. 3. Further case of plaintiffs is that Defendants property is on the western side of the suit property. Defendants in collusion with Arumuga Chetty and his minor son Azhagesan attempted to claim right over the undivided 1/2 share in the suit properties on the basis of Ex.B7 sale deed (dt.012. 1998) but antedated and executed on 19.08.1998 with a view to defeat the right of the respondents. After issuing notice, plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and for permanent injunction. 4. Appellant resisted the suit inter-alia contending that suit property originally belonged to Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty and that on 01.06.1998, Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty agreed to sell the property for sale consideration of Rs.26,000/- and entered into a sale agreement and on that date itself they handed over the possession of the suit properties to the defendant. According to defendant, from 01.06.1998, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, that on 19.08.1998, Arumuga Chetty and his legal heir executed a sale deed in favour of defendant and on 11.09.1998, Kesava Chetty orally sold his ½ share in the suit properties and that the suit is liable to dismissed. 5. On the above pleadings four issues were framed in the trial Court. On the side of plaintiffs, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of defendant, defendant himself was examined as DW1. Chinnasamy was examined as DW2. Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. Exs. C1 and C2 were also marked. .6. 5. On the above pleadings four issues were framed in the trial Court. On the side of plaintiffs, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of defendant, defendant himself was examined as DW1. Chinnasamy was examined as DW2. Exs.D1 to D8 were marked. Exs. C1 and C2 were also marked. .6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that defendant was not in possession of the suit property from 01.06.1998 as claimed by him and plaintiffs are entitled to suit properties as per Ex.A1 sale deed dated 30.11.1998. Trial Court further held that Ex.B3 sale agreement is not a bonafide document and the defendant had not raised any objections for registration of Ex.A1 sale deed. Pointing out patta has been granted to the respondents, trial Court decreed plaintiffs suit. 7. Aggrieved by decreeing of suit, defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.97 of 2004. Lower Appellate Court pointed out that Ex.B8 sale deed (dt.19.04.1999) is subsequent to the suit i.e., 4 months after the suit and therefore Ex.B8 is hit by lis-pendens. Lower Appellate Court further held that Ex.B8 will not prevail upon Ex.A1. Holding that Ex.B3 agreement of sale was not executed on the date on which document was said to be executed, lower Appellate Court confirmed findings of trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant. 8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of Courts below defendant has filed this Second Appeal. At the time of admission the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:- "1. Whether the Lower Court is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that Ex.A1 dated 30.11.1998 would prevail over Ex.B8 which had been executed prior there to but registered subsequent to the Ex.A1 totally overlooking the judgment of the Supreme Court which states that a document will take effect from the date of execution and not from the date of its registration? 2. Whether the Lower Court is right in law in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents who have failed to prove their possession of the property by providing satisfactory evidence totally overlooking the fact that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to prove possession in a suit for injunction?" 9. 2. Whether the Lower Court is right in law in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondents who have failed to prove their possession of the property by providing satisfactory evidence totally overlooking the fact that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to prove possession in a suit for injunction?" 9. Even at the outset, it is to be pointed out that appellant / defendant claimed right over ½ share of the suit properties under Ex.B7 sale deed dated 19.08.1998 registered on 012. 1998 and in respect of remaining ½ share defendant initially claimed right on the basis of oral sale by Kesava Chetty. Thereafter, in respect of the remaining ½ share, defendant claimed right on the basis of Ex.B8 dated 14.09.1999, which was after the filing of the suit on 22.01.1999. On the contrary plaintiffs claimed right on the basis of Ex.A1 sale deed executed and registered on 30.11.1998. .10. Admittedly, originally property belonged to Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty. .Plaintiffs purchased the suit property from Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty under Ex.A1 sale deed (30.11.1998) for Rs.22,960/-. In Ex.A1, payment of consideration is stated as that for meeting family expenses and discharge of family debts, vendors Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty received Rs.22,960/-. Whereas in his evidence and pleadings plaintiff stated that he purchased the property by paying consideration of Rs.22,960/- on the date of sale deed. 11. The learned counsel for appellant Ms.P.T.Asha contended that there is variation between evidence, pleadings and recitals in Ex.A1 sale deed. It was further argued that Ex.A1 sale deed does not contain recitals / endorsements as to payment of consideration on the date of registration of sale deed. It was therefore contended that once payment of consideration is not proved, sale deed cannot be said to have been proved and there is no proof for passing of title. 12. The above contention does not merit acceptance. Any variation as to the payment of consideration would not affect validity of the sale. Although the recitals in Ex.A1 is to the effect that vendors already received the consideration amount for meeting family expenses and discharge of debts, it will not affect the passing of title. Intention of the parties is that the title should pass on registration of the sale deed. Although the recitals in Ex.A1 is to the effect that vendors already received the consideration amount for meeting family expenses and discharge of debts, it will not affect the passing of title. Intention of the parties is that the title should pass on registration of the sale deed. In any event, defendant who was stranger to the document cannot challenge the recitals as to the payment of consideration. 13. The first substantial question of law framed is whether Courts below were right in holding that Ex.A1(30.11.1998) would prevail upon Ex.B8. Defendant claims to have purchased ½ share from Arumuga Chetty and his minor son Azhagesan under Ex.B7 sale deed executed on 19.08.1998 but registered on 012. 1998. Absolutely there is no reason for delay in registration of document on 012. 1998. Even though, plaintiff had issued pre-suit notice, defendant has not chosen to send any reply stating about Ex.B7 sale deed or Ex.B3 agreement of sale. .14. Defendant mainly relies upon Ex.B3 agreement of sale dated 01.06.1998 to contend that he purchased the property even prior to Ex.A1. As pointed by Courts below Ex.B3 is not referred to in Ex.B7 sale deed. That apart, Ex.B3 does not contain any description of property. In his evidence DW1 has stated that at the time of Ex.B3 agreement of sale, he paid entire sale consideration to Kesava Chetty and Arumuga Chetty on the same date of Ex.B3. If the entire amount was so paid, there was no impediment for getting the document registered immediately. As pointed out earlier, Ex.B7 sale deed though executed on 19.08.1998, registered on 012. 1998. No reason is forthcoming as to the delay in registration of the document. 15. Learned counsel for appellant/defendant mainly contended that Ex.B4 original exchange deed was handed over to defendant, which would go a long way in strengthening defence case that Ex.B7 will prevail upon Ex.A1. It was further argued that Courts below did not keep in view the important circumstance that defendant was in possession of Ex.B4 original exchange deed. Possession of Ex.B4 exchange deed would not in any way advance the defendants case. If really Ex.B4 exchange deed was handed over to the defendant, Ex.B3 would have contained description of property but that was not to be so. 16. Suit was filed on 21. 1999. Ex.B8 sale deed (14. 1999) executed by Kesava Chetty in favour of defendant is after the suit. If really Ex.B4 exchange deed was handed over to the defendant, Ex.B3 would have contained description of property but that was not to be so. 16. Suit was filed on 21. 1999. Ex.B8 sale deed (14. 1999) executed by Kesava Chetty in favour of defendant is after the suit. Ex.B8 is hit by Doctrine of lis-pendens. Doctrine of lis-pendens is intended to strike at attempts by parties to a litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of the Court. Ex.B7 registered on 012. 1998 (Subsequent to Ex.A1) and Ex.B8 (19.04.1999), which is subsequent to the suit cannot prevail upon Ex.A1 (30.11.1998). 17. Onbehalf of appellant/defendant, it was nextly contended that on the date of Ex.B3 sale agreement itself possession was handed over to the defendant. Learned counsel for defendant submitted defendant is taking water from his Well situated on the western side through underground pipe. It was submitted that during his visit, Commissioner also noted the underground pipeline for taking water from defendants Well to the suit property. 18. It was contended that Courts below did not keep in view passing of consideration under Ex.A1 has not been proved and Courts below erred in placing burden of proof upon defendant. It was further submitted that once passing of consideration is not proved, Ex.A1 would not confer any title upon plaintiff and while so, Courts below erred in declaring plaintiffs title based upon Ex.A1. 19. Under Ex.B3 (01.06.1998), defendant is said to have paid sale consideration of Rs.26,600/- and since entire amount was paid, possession is said to have been handed over to the defendant. As held by Courts below Ex.B7 has no reference to Ex.B3. Further, if really possession was so handed over Ex.B3 agreement of sale deed could have been registered. 20. Based upon facts and materials on record, Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that Ex.B7 cannot prevail upon Ex.A1. Ex.B8 sale deed, which is subsequent to the suit and right under Ex.B8 is only the subject to the result of pending litigation. Upon analysis of evidence, Courts below rightly decreed plaintiff suit. The findings of Courts below do not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. 21. In the result, judgment in A.S.No.97 of 2004 dated 4. 2006 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court at Kallakurichi confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi dated 6. The findings of Courts below do not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. 21. In the result, judgment in A.S.No.97 of 2004 dated 4. 2006 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court at Kallakurichi confirming the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif Court at Kallakurichi dated 6. 2004 in O.S.No.40 of 1999 is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to cost. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.