JUDGMENT : The Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1444 of 1993 has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 25th September 1989 made in A.S. No. 95 of 1984, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 30th June 1984 made in O.S. No. 145 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Senkottai. 2. The Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1445 of 1993 has been filed challenging Judgment and Decree dated 25th September 1989 made in A.S. No. 101 of 1984, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 30th June 1984 made in O.S. No. 144 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Senkottai. 3. The appellants herein in S.A. No. 1445 of 1993 as the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No. 389 of 1977, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for declaration of title in respect of first item of property and injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from enjoying the property and alternatively for removal of encroachment portion and also for removing the compound wall and gate and for mandatory injunction. Originally the suit in O.S. No. 389 of 1977 has been filed on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. Subsequently, it was transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court, Senkottai and it was renumbered as O.S. No. 145 of 1981. 4. But the first respondent herein as the plaintiff has filed O.S. No. 383 of 1977 on of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi and later it was transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court, Senkottai and it was renumbered as O.S. No. 144 of 1981, for declaration of title and also injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere his peaceful possession and enjoyment of his compound wall stating that in the first item of the property, he has made a construction of his house and also put up a compound wall, after obtaining permission from the panchayat. In the southern side he has to put up East West compound wall. When he was dig the foundation, the defendants wanted to widen East West road and they demanded the first respondent/plaintiff to left 2 feet on southern side and construct on western side. In the southern side he has to put up East West compound wall. When he was dig the foundation, the defendants wanted to widen East West road and they demanded the first respondent/plaintiff to left 2 feet on southern side and construct on western side. Since the first respondent/plaintiff has not accepted the same, the defendants attempted to interfere his peaceful possession. Hence, he is constrained to file a suit for declaration of title and also injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere his peaceful possession and enjoyment of his compound wall. 5. The defendants 1 to 5 filed a detailed written statement by stating that the plaintiff is entitled to 18 cc on southern side and not 20 cc. The settlement deed dated 23.08.1951 is not a true document. The panchayat plan is not a true one. Once the plaintiff's father executed a settlement deed on 27.08.1943, the plaintiff's father has no right over the property. The settlement deed dated 27.08.1943 and the sale deed dated 23.08.1951 are fabricated documents. The plaintiff's grandfather Karuppasamy Thevar is the owner of the property of East West 17 s cc, North South 20cc on western side and North South 18cc on eastern side. He sold the same in favour of Sankarapandia Thevar on 13.02.1926. From that date onwards, Sankarapandia Thevar was in possession and enjoyment. The southern side of the property was owned by the defendants' maternal grandmother Petchiammal and that has been accepted by the plaintiff and he purchased the same under a sale deed dated 13.04.1955. In that it was specifically stated that on South West 18 cc and not 20 cc and in that one of the boundaries is Gomathi Ammal's property. The plaintiff wantonly suppressed the documents and has come forward with this suit. After obtaining an interim order, he made a construction of compound wall. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The defendants also filed a suit in O.S. No. 389 of 1977 for declaration of title in respect of first item of property and injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from enjoying the property and alternatively for removal of encroachment portion and also for removing the compound wall and gate and for mandatory injunction stating that the second schedule property belonged to plaintiff's maternal grandmother Petchiammal @ Ponnammal. She purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10.01.1936 from one Nainar Pillai. She purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10.01.1936 from one Nainar Pillai. After the death of Petchi, they succeeded the property. In that it was stated that North of the property, there was a common pathway, but the defendant attempted to put up a compound wall and door frame, which was objected by them. Immediately he filed a suit and obtained an injunction order in I.A. No. 1840 of 1977 and made a construction. Hence, they are constrained to file the suit. 7. The defendant who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 383 of 1977, filed a written statement and reiterated the averments made in the plaint in O.S. No. 383 of 1977. 8. Both the suits have been tried jointly and in that, the suit in O.S. No. 144 of 1981 filed by the first respondent herein has been dismissed and the suit in O.S. No. 145 of 1981 filed by the appellants herein has been decreed. Against which, the first respondent herein filed appeals in A.S. No. 95 of 1984 and A.S. No. 101 of 1984. After hearing both sides, both the appeals were allowed. Against which, both the Second Appeals have been filed by the appellants. 9. At the time of admission of both the Second Appeals, the following Substantial Questions of Law have been framed: (1) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in upholding the plea of benami set up by the first respondent Isakki Thevar, when such a plea is specifically barred by the statue? and (2) Whether Exs.A.1, B.4 and A.2 will clothe the first respondent, Isakki Thevar, with any right in excess of what can be claimed by him under Exs.B.1 and B.2? 10. On 02.06.2016, the first Substantial Question of Law has been deleted and the following new Substantial Question of Law has been framed: “Whether the respondent/plaintiff is barred under Section 92 of the Evidence Act for deposing against the averment made in Ex.B.1?” 11. Head the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. The subject matter of the suit property is one and the same in both the suits. For the sake of convenience, the name of the party has been mentioned. Head the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. The subject matter of the suit property is one and the same in both the suits. For the sake of convenience, the name of the party has been mentioned. One Isakki Thevar as a plaintiff filed the first suit for declaration and injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere with the construction of a compound wall and a gate way put up in the compound wall stating that he is entitled to 20cc. Admittedly, the Commissioner was appointed and he also filed his report stating that on eastern side, the plaintiff had a road and on southern side, a common pathway is there. 13. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, as per original documents, the plaintiff is entitled only 18cc, but he created the documents Exs.A.1 and A.2, as if he is entitled to 20cc and he encroached on southern side, which resulted to decreasing / curtailing the width of the common pathway, which prevented the inmates of the pathway to use the pathway to use their vehicles. 14. So the point to be decided is whether Isakki Thevar is entitled North South 20cc on Eastern side. The ancient document of Isakki Thevar is Ex.B.1. The grandfather of Isakki Thevar sold the property in favour of Sankarapandia Thevar on 13.02.1926 under Ex.B.1, in which he has stated only 18cc. On 13.04.1955, the plaintiff Isakki Thevar purchased the property from Sankarapandia Thevar under Ex.B.2. But the plaintiff would submit that under Ex.A.1, dated 27.08.1943, the father of Isakki Thevar viz., Subbiah Thevar has executed a settlement deed in favour of Petchiammal on the eve of her marriage. In that it was stated that East West 17 s cc and North South western side 20 cc and on eastern side 18cc. On 23.08.1951, Subbiah Thevar purchased the same from Petchiammal. The approved plan is marked as Ex.A.3 and rough plan is marked as Ex.A.4. Even though, the plaintiff marked the document Ex.A.5, the sale of Velayutham by Ponnusamy is not related to the suit property. In the plaint, the plaintiff Isakki Thevar has suppressed the existence of Exs.B.1 and B.2 and those documents were marked on the side of the defendants/appellants herein. 15. It is an admitted fact that Karuppasamy Thevar is none other than the grandfather of Isakki Thevar. In the plaint, the plaintiff Isakki Thevar has suppressed the existence of Exs.B.1 and B.2 and those documents were marked on the side of the defendants/appellants herein. 15. It is an admitted fact that Karuppasamy Thevar is none other than the grandfather of Isakki Thevar. He sold the property under Ex.B.1 dated 13.02.1926 to Sankarapandia Thevar. Isakki Thevar purchased the same under Ex.B.2 dated 13.04.1955 and they are not the owner of the first item of the property on the date of execution of Ex.A.1. So, Exs.A.1 and A.2 are the concocted documents. So in Exs.B.1 and B.2, it was specifically mentioned that South North 20 cc on west and 18 cc on East. So Isakki Thevar must prove that he is the owner of the entire item. One cc equals to 2.34 feet. But admittedly, Isakki Thevar is in possession of 55.7 on eastern side and 42.4' at western side. So the width of the common pathway has been curtailed, which prevents the inmates of this common pathway to enjoy the property by using the vehicles. 16. Per contra, the respondents/defendants grandmother has purchased the property under Ex.B.5 dated 10.01.1936. In that it was stated that on East West 12 cc and North South 23cc. The northern boundary of the property is Karuppasamy Thevar's property. Nainar Pillai has purchased the property under Court auction sale vide Ex.A.6. The sale certificate has been marked as Ex.A.6, in which it was stated that West of North South street, North of Arunachalam's site, South of Karuppasamy's site, East of Chellakaruppa Thevar's site, East West 10cc and North South 20cc. That has been purchased by Petchiammal under Ex.B.5 which equals to Ex.B.9. In that it was stated that the property has been purchased by a decree passed in Small Cause No. 959 of 1928. But the only dispute is in respect of width of the lane. But admittedly, as per Exs.B.1 and B.2, East West measurement is 17 s cc, North South 20cc on western side and North South 18cc on eastern side. So Isakki Thevar is entitled to only 18 cc as per Exs.B.1 and B.2 and he is not entitled any property in excess of what he can claim under Exs.B.1 and B.2. 17. But admittedly, as per Exs.B.1 and B.2, East West measurement is 17 s cc, North South 20cc on western side and North South 18cc on eastern side. So Isakki Thevar is entitled to only 18 cc as per Exs.B.1 and B.2 and he is not entitled any property in excess of what he can claim under Exs.B.1 and B.2. 17. The learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that once documentary evidence is available, as per Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff is barred to give evidence against the registered document. The earliest document is Ex.B.1 dated 13.02.1926. He purchased the same under Ex.B.2 on 13.04.1955. So he is not entitled to depose evidence against Exs.B.1 and B.2. 18. It is appropriate to incorporate Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act which is as follows: “92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement:- When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms.” 19. Once the plaintiff is claiming right under the registered document, he cannot go behind the document. It is true that he has not filed the documents Exs.B.1 and B.2 before the Court. He has not made the pleadings in respect of Exs.B.1 and B.2. But it is a title document. He relied upon the documents Exs.A.1 and A.2. Ex.A.1 = Ex.B.4 and the approved plan is Ex.A.4. But on the date of Ex.A.1, Subbiah Thevar has no right over the property, because his father Karuppasamy Thevar himself has sold the property on 13.02.1926 under Ex.B.1 in favour of one Sankarapandia Thevar. From the legal heir of Sankarapandia Thevar, Isakki Thevar/plaintiff has purchased the property under Ex.B.2 dated 13.04.1955. So, on 27.08.1943, Subbiah Thevar S/o Karuppasamy Thevar, who is the father of Isakki Thevar has no right over the property. However, he fabricated the settlement deed in favour of one Petchi and she was married. Subsequently, he purchased the same under Ex.A.2 dated 23.08.1951, which shows that these documents were fabricated with a due to defraud the parties. So, on 27.08.1943, Subbiah Thevar S/o Karuppasamy Thevar, who is the father of Isakki Thevar has no right over the property. However, he fabricated the settlement deed in favour of one Petchi and she was married. Subsequently, he purchased the same under Ex.A.2 dated 23.08.1951, which shows that these documents were fabricated with a due to defraud the parties. So, once they are claimed that Isakki Thevar purchased the property under Ex.B.2 dated 13.04.1955, he is not entitled to claim what he was not purchased. So he is not entitled to plead an oral evidence which is contrary to the registered document. So I am of the opinion that the plaintiff - Isakki Thevar is barred to give evidence against the registered documents viz., Exs.B.1 and B.2, as per Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act for deposing against the averments made in Exs.B.1 and B.2. Hence, as per Ex.B.2, the plaintiff - Isakki Thevar is entitled to what he purchased. The Substantial Questions of Law 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 20. The plaintiff Isakki Thevar is entitled to only 18cc on eastern side. But as per the Commissioner's plan, he is in possession of North South 52.7' eastern side and 42.4' on the western side. But he is entitled to only 18cc on eastern side and 20cc on western side. So he encroached upon the first item of first schedule property and by which he prevented the inmates to use the pathway to reach the place in the vehicles. That factum was not considered by the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court ought to have assigned the reason for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The trial Court has considered all these aspects in a proper and perspective manner and granted a decree of declaration of title to the second item of the property and directing the third defendant/Isakki Thevar to remove the construction made in the pathway and granted three months' time. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be allowed and consequently, the plaintiff Isakki Thevar is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly both the Second Appeals are hereby allowed. 21. Hence, both the appeals are liable to be allowed and consequently, the plaintiff Isakki Thevar is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly both the Second Appeals are hereby allowed. 21. In the result, (1) the Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1445 of 1993 is allowed ; (2) the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 101 of 1984 has been set aside; (3) the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 144 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Senkottai has been restored; and (4) the suit in O.S. No. 144 of 1981 has been dismissed; (5) the Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1444 of 1993 is allowed; (6) the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 95 of 1984 is set aside; (7) the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 145 of 1981, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Senkottai is restored; and (8) the suit in O.S. No. 145 of 1981 is decreed for declaring the plaintiffs as the owners of the second item of the suit property and mandatory injunction is granted to remove the compound wall constructed in the common pathway. (9) two months' time is granted to remove the compound wall. (10) No costs.