Judgment : 1. The legal representatives of the fifth defendant have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, in A.S. No. 22 of 2004 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2003 passed in O.S. No.57 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, were confirmed. 2. The plaintiffs / respondents herein filed O.S. No. 57 of 1999 for declaration of title to the suit properties and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any way trespassing into the suit properties and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs also sought for declaration declaring the alleged sale deeds dated 26.7.1995 and 10.12.1998 as invalid under law. 3. The facts of the case of the plaintiffs, necessary for disposal of this second appeal are as follows: (a) Sengaliappa Goundar, son of one Velayutha Goundar, had two sons by name Palanimuthu Goundar and Subbia Goundar. Palanimuthu Goundar had three issues viz., Velusamy, Mayilsamy, (second plaintiff) and Deivathal. Velusamy's son is the first plaintiff Sivasubramanim. Valayutha Goundar, Palanimuthu Goundar, Subbiah Goundar, Deivathal and her husband are no more. (b) By sale deed dated 24.7.1905, Sengaliappa Goundar purchased 3.78 acres of land in S.No.862 in Vavipalayam Village, from one Palani Goundar and he was in enjoyment of that property. The said Sengaliappa Gounder died several years before without settling the said property. His sons Palanimuthu and Subbia inherited and were enjoying the said property separately. On 26.4.1956, they partitioned the said property among themselves by a registered partition deed in which the suit property is referred by the reclassified S.No.862/3. (c) On 11.10.1968, Palanimuthu and his three issues (Velusamy, Mayilsamy and Deivathal) partitioned the above property along with other ancestral properties. In the said partition, 1.83 acres each was allotted to Velusamy and Mayilsamy and they were enjoying their respective shares separately. (d) Some portions of S.No.862/3 were acquired for Parambikulam-Aliyar canal project and the compensation for the acquired lands was received by Palanimuthu and his family. Adangal and Chitta for the suit property are also stand in the name of Velusamy and Mayilsamy. (e) The second plaintiff pledged his share of the suit property with the State Bank of Travancore, Tiruppur. (d) Some portions of S.No.862/3 were acquired for Parambikulam-Aliyar canal project and the compensation for the acquired lands was received by Palanimuthu and his family. Adangal and Chitta for the suit property are also stand in the name of Velusamy and Mayilsamy. (e) The second plaintiff pledged his share of the suit property with the State Bank of Travancore, Tiruppur. In one portion of the suit property, the plaintiffs cultivated horse-gram while keeping the rest of the property as vacant land. Thus, the plaintiffs alone are in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit property for the past 90 years. (f) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants with ulterior motive, created bogus documents in respect of the suit properties and hence, the father of the first plaintiff sent notice to defendants 1 to 4. On 26.7.1995, defendants 1 to 4 created a sale deed in favour of 6th defendant in respect of the suit property. Subsequently, the 6th defendant fraudulently created a sale deed in favour of 5th defendant. The said two sale deeds are created with ulterior motive. As the plaintiffs are in enjoyment of the entire suit property and as they are not parties to the said sale deeds, the said documents will not bind the plaintiffs. (g) On the basis of the above said two bogus sale deeds, defendants are disturbing the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs and trying to enter into the property. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. As the third defendant died during pendency of the suit, 7th defendant was impleaded as his LR. 4. The 5th defendant, who contested the suit, filed written statement contending that Palani Goundar executed a sale deed in favour of Sengaliappa Goundar on 24.7.1905, but the said Sengaliappa Goundar did not purchase 3.78 Acres in S.No.862. As the said deed dated 24.7.1905 was not acted upon, the plaintiffs have not mentioned about the said sale deed. It is the case of the defendants that the original possession and enjoyment of the suit property was only with the Palani Goundar. By sale deed dated 08.9.1911, Palani Gounder sold 3.78 acres in S.No. 862 to one Rangasamy, son of Nachimuthu Goundar. It is the case of the defendants that the original possession and enjoyment of the suit property was only with the Palani Goundar. By sale deed dated 08.9.1911, Palani Gounder sold 3.78 acres in S.No. 862 to one Rangasamy, son of Nachimuthu Goundar. In the said sale deed dated 08.9.1911, it is clearly mentioned that the sale deed dated 24.7.1905 in favour of Sengaliappa Goudnar was only sham and nominal and the same was not acted upon. Hence, the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Sengaliappa Goundar, his sons inherited the suit property is not true. According to the fifth respndent, one Nachimuthu Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of 3.78 acres in S.No.862, which was classified as S.No.862/3 on 4.11.1914. The said property was sold to Rangasamy Gounder, Junior Rangasamy Goundar and Nachimuthu Goundar, sons of Palani Goundar. Subsequently, the said property along with other properties, was partitioned among them. As per partition deed dated 24.8.1922, Nachimuthu Goundar sold half of S.No. 862/3 to one Palani Goundar, son of Nanjappa Goundar. On 11.10.1926, Senior Rangasamy Goundar purchased the said half share of S.No.862/3 from Palani Goundar. Thus, Senior Rangasamy Goundar was in possession and enjoyment of the entire property in S.No. 862/3. Patta in respect of the said property also stands in the name of Senior Rangasamy Gounder. He died leaving his only son Nachimuthu Goundar as his Legal Representative. The compensation paid for acquisition of land for Parambikulam-Aliyar project was received only by Nachimuthu Goundar and his sons. Therefore, according to the fifth defendant, defendants 1 to 4 alone were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till 26.7.1995 and subsequently, the 6th defendant purchased the suit property from them. On 10.12.1998, the 5th defendant purchased the suit property from 6th defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property since then. According to the 5th defendant, the sale deeds dated 26.7.1995 and 10.12.1998 are true and valid. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit was not valued properly. Hence the suit is to be dismissed. 5. It is seen that pending the First Appeal, the fifth defendant died and hence, the present appellants were added as parties. 6. The learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, on the basis of the above pleadings, proceeded with the trial of the suit. Hence the suit is to be dismissed. 5. It is seen that pending the First Appeal, the fifth defendant died and hence, the present appellants were added as parties. 6. The learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, on the basis of the above pleadings, proceeded with the trial of the suit. The first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 39 documents, viz., Exs. A.1 to A.39. To nullify the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined on the side of the defendants besides marking Exs. B.1 to B.13. Exs. X.1 and X.2 were marked as witness documents. 7. Trial Court / learned District Munsif, Tiruppur, on consideration of the evidence adduced and the materials available thereon, finding that the plaintiffs have proved their case, decreed the suit as prayed for, vide judgment dated 31.12.2003. On appeal by the legal representatives of the fifth defendant, the Lower Appellate Court / learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur, appreciating the facts and law, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed A.S. No. 22 of 2004 vide judgment dated 30.11.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the legal representatives of the 5th defendant in the suit have come up with this second Appeal. 8. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:- (i) Is the lower appellate Court justified in not considering the oral evidence adduced by the appellants to prove their case of possession, overlooking the duty of the first appellate Court to consider the entire materials available on record being the final court of fact? (ii) When it is proved by the recitals in Ex.B.13 that the sale deed Ex.A.1 was sham and nominal, is the Lower Appellate Court justified in holding that the sale deed Ex.A.1 conveyed title to the vendee? 9. Heard Mr. A.K. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 10. From the materials available on record, it is seen that one Velayutha Gounder had two sons, viz., Sengaliappa Gounder and Palani Gounder. The said Palani Gounder had sold the property under Ex. A.1 to Sengaliappa Gounder, who is his brother. The same property was again sold by the same vendor, viz., Palani Gounder in favour of one Rangasamy under Ex. B.13 dated 08.9.1911. The two sale deeds, Exs. The said Palani Gounder had sold the property under Ex. A.1 to Sengaliappa Gounder, who is his brother. The same property was again sold by the same vendor, viz., Palani Gounder in favour of one Rangasamy under Ex. B.13 dated 08.9.1911. The two sale deeds, Exs. A.1 and B.13 executed by Palani Gounder have lead to the filing of the suit. 11. The issue that has to be resolved in this appeal is as to the right of the said Palani Gounder to convey the same property for the second time. 12. The pleadings are also silent about the fact that the said Palani Gounder was the brother of Sengaliappa Gounder and the son of Velayudha Gounder and there is also no reason forthcoming to specify as to why the said fact was not explained in the pleadings. The vendor under Ex. A.1 and B.13 had claimed that the properties were self-acquired properties. There are no details in the documents sold nor any parent document has been filed to establish the same. However, the purchasers under Exs. A.1 and B.13 have not disputed the fact that their vendor is the same Palani Gounder. The legal heirs of the fifth defendant, who have been contesting the suit, had sold the suit properties under Ex. B.13 to Rangasamy even in the year 1911. Therefore, the allegation that the legal heirs of Sengaliappa Gounder obtained the properties after his death was denied. The said Rangasamy Gounder had sold the properties to the sons of Palani Gounder. Thereafter, there was a partition amongst them in which the share of Nachimuthu Gounder was sold in favour of Palani Gounder, son of Nachimuthu Gounder. The Senior Rangasamy Gounder purchased the half share in 862/3 on 11.10.1926 and accordingly, Senior Rangasamy Gounder was in possession of the entire property in S. No. 862/3. While so, Senior Rangasamy Gounder died leaving his only son Nachimuthu Gounder as his heir. It is the contention of the fifth defendant that the said Nachimuthu Gounder and his sons, in fact, received the land acquisition compensation from the Government in the portion of the lands acquired for the purpose of Parambikulam Aliyar Project. Therefore, they denied the fact that Palanimuthu Gounder's heirs got the share. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 4 claimed that till 1995, they had been in possession of the suit property. 13. Therefore, they denied the fact that Palanimuthu Gounder's heirs got the share. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 4 claimed that till 1995, they had been in possession of the suit property. 13. It is seen that subsequently, the defendants 1 to 4 sold the property in favour of the sixth defendant on 10.12.1998 from whom the fifth defendant, who is contesting the suit, had purchased the property on 10.12.1998 under Ex. B.1. Therefore, it is clear that the prior documents of title of the fifth defendant, viz., Ex. B.2 dated 26.7.1995 are valid. 14. In the light of the contention of the fifth defendant, it is to be seen whether his vendors had valid title. As stated earlier, Palani Gounder, son of Velayutha Gounder had sold the same property again on 08.9.1911 in favour of Rangasamy Gounder from whom the defendants derived the title. The defendants are emboldened by the recital in Ex. B.13 dated 08.9.1911 wherein it is recited that the said Palani Gounder had earlier sold the same property on 24.7.1905 under Ex.A.1 in favour of his brother Sengaliappa Gounder and according to them, the same was sham and nominal and that the original of Ex. A.1 has been handed over to the purchaser under Ex. B.13. Though in Ex. A.1, the sale has been described as sham and nominal, the fifth defendant had contested on the ground that it was a benami transaction, sham and nominal and not acted upon. The question of benami transaction was discussed by the trial Court and held Ex. A.1 to be a benami transaction, which finding was set aside by the Lower Appellate Court holding the same was not benami. 15. The next contention of the fifth defendant that Ex. A.1 was sham and nominal and, therefore, not acted upon is concerned, the same is to be proved by the appellants herein, viz., legal representatives of the fifth defendant. The recitals of Ex. A.1 dated 24.7.1905, a registered sale deed, read that the sale has been executed in favour of Sengaliappa Gounder and possession was also given to him from the date of sale. It is settled principle that any document over and above the value of Rs.100/- has to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Once such a registration is effected, the document is deemed to have come into force from the time of registration. It is settled principle that any document over and above the value of Rs.100/- has to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Once such a registration is effected, the document is deemed to have come into force from the time of registration. Similarly, the sale which is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised and registered in a manner known to law, gives away the rights in the property what the vendor had at the time of sale to the purchaser excepting the rights that may be reserved by the vendor. Therefore, having executed the sale deed with an intention to give up the right in the said property in the year 1905, the said Palani Gounder could not have had any right or interest in the same property to make a sale again under Ex. A.13 in 1911. If really the sale under Ex. A.1 was intended to be sham and nominal, the vendor or any other person interested in the property, ought to have taken legal action to set aside the sale deed within the time stipulated as per law. The fifth defendant, whose legal representatives are contesting, as a purchaser, should have been vigilant before purchasing the properties to verify whether his vendor had good and valid marketable title on the date of sale. The fifth defendant also cannot plead ignorance about Ex. A.1 sale, because even in Ex. B.13, as stated earlier, it has been recited that the vendor Palani Gounder had executed a sale deed in favour of his brother which is sham and nominal. Therefore, the fifth defendant, having knowledge about the existing sale prior to Ex. B.13 sale, ought to have taken steps to set aside the sale deed by paying necessary Court fees. In this case, the appellants are precluded from raising such contention, because even in Ex. B.13, there is a specific mention about Ex. A.1. When the previous sale has been mentioned even in the sale deed in writing, the appellants are estopped from challenging the same beyond the period of limitation and it should be deemed that they have given up the right to challenge the same. Despite knowledge of the previous sale, neither the fifth defendant nor Rangasamy, had taken any steps to cancel the sale deed under Ex. A.1. Therefore, the sale deed under Ex. Despite knowledge of the previous sale, neither the fifth defendant nor Rangasamy, had taken any steps to cancel the sale deed under Ex. A.1. Therefore, the sale deed under Ex. A.1 dated 24.7.1905 in favour of Sengaliappa Gounder executed by Palani Gounder is a valid document and it is not sham and nominal and cannot be taken as not acted upon. Accordingly, question of law No. 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 16. Insofar as the possession of the properties is concerned, Sengaliappa Gounder, the original owner under Ex. A.1, died leaving behind his sons Palanimuthu and Subbia. In a partition under Ex. A.2 dated 26.4.1956 between Palanimuthu and Subbiah, the suit property was allotted to Palanimuthu, who had three children, viz., Palanisamy, Mayilsamy and Deivathal. Deivathal died and Velusamy and Mayilsamy are the plaintiffs in the suit. Again, there was a partition between the brothers on 11.10.1968 in which the suit properties were divided equally between them allotting each one of them 1.83 Crores under Ex. A.3. It was also submitted that there was a dispute regarding the partition in the family of Palani Gounder in which legal notice was sent under Ex. A.4 dated 22.9.1995 and the same was served on defendants 1 and 4 in the suit and the acknowledgment is marked as Exs. A.5 and A.6. Though the compensation awarded for the land acquisition for the purpose of Parambikulam Aliyar project was claimed to have been received by the plaintiffs / respondents, no document is filed to prove the same. The defendants taking advantage of the same, claimed that they have been recognised as owners of the property in the acquisition proceedings. However, having regard to the finding given in the earlier issue, viz., the title regarding the suit property, it is not open to the appellants to make such claim. It is pertinent to point out at this stage that when the first sale was valid, any subsequent sale without setting aside the same, cannot convey any title to the parties. Even if the defendants had any right over the suit properties, the same can be crystallized only if the previous sale is cancelled or set aside in the manner known to law. Even if the defendants had any right over the suit properties, the same can be crystallized only if the previous sale is cancelled or set aside in the manner known to law. However, the plaintiffs have come up with the present suit which was filed on 22.3.1999 for declaration that the sale deed dated 26.7.1995 in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 and the sale deed dated 10.12.1998 in favour of the fifth defendant, are invalid under law within the period of limitation. 17. Admittedly, the patta was in the name of one Pattey Gounder and Palanisamy Gounder. There is no explanation as to who the said Pattaya Gounder is. However, on the application by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, the Deputy Tahsildar, Pongalur, had directed to issue the patta in the plaintiffs' name vide order dated 13.6.1998 and marked as Ex. A.9. The plaintiffs have produced the other kist receipts and irrigation card to establish their possession. Admittedly, because of the pendency of the proceedings, the patta was not issued in favour of the plaintiffs but that will not deprive them to say that they have got valid right and title to the suit property which is better title than the defendant. 18. In support of their case, the defendants had filed Exs. B.8 and B.9 adangal extracts to show that they are in possession. The Lower Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that since the sale deed under Ex. B.13 is not valid, any transfer based on the same, cannot be accepted. Besides, the Revenue records will not confer title to a party and proceedings of the Deputy Tahsildar, Pongalur, directing a patta to be issued in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly, a patta has been issued in 2003 which is subsequent to the suit. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit properties. 19. In view of the foregoing, the reasoning of the Lower Appellate Court based on the above factual discussion cannot be brushed aside and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Based on the above findings, the decree granted by the trial Court declaring the title of the plaintiffs and setting aside the sale deeds dated 26.7.1995 and 10.12.1998 declaring the same as invalid and also the consequential relief of injunction granted by the trial Court, warrant no interference by this Court. Based on the above findings, the decree granted by the trial Court declaring the title of the plaintiffs and setting aside the sale deeds dated 26.7.1995 and 10.12.1998 declaring the same as invalid and also the consequential relief of injunction granted by the trial Court, warrant no interference by this Court. In fine, the Second Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed confirming the concurrent finding of the Courts below. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.