JUDGMENT : R.F.A.No.784/2013 and R.F.A.No.785/2013 are filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2012 passed in O.S.No.7102/2009 and O.S.No.7174/2009, respectively on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCHNo.42). 2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Court below to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.7102/2009 filed the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction contending that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which is morefully described in the schedule. The property in Survey No.39 of Yelachenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, is the ancestral property of the vendor of the plaintiff Sri A. Shankar, who has acquired the said property and other composite properties through registered sale deed dated 13.5.1973. During his life time, his father Dr. H. Anjanappa had alienated the property bearing Survey No.39 to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas and in Survey No.40/1 to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas, in total extent of 3 acres through registered sale deed dated 18.9.1987 which is registered as document No.2858/1987 in Book No.1 in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Madras and he has been in continuous possession over the said property. The revenue documents clearly show that Sri Shankar was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment over the said property. Subsequently, he formed sites in Survey No.39 and 40/1A situated at Yelachenahalli Village and sold the sites in favour of several purchasers. The plaintiff is also one of the purchasers of sites who purchased the schedule property from Sri Shankar. 4. The plaintiff has acquired the schedule property through a registered sale deed dated 20.1.2005. Subsequent to the purchasing of the property, khatha has been transferred in his name and he is exercising both possessory right of ownership and in enjoyment of the suit schedule property in the revenue records and he has been paying the taxes. Now the property comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP. Hence, he is paying the taxes in respect of the schedule property with Uttarahalli Sub-Division, BBMP. 5. The defendant No.1 claims to be owner of the schedule property and tried several times to interfere with the suit schedule property and the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property. Now the property comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP. Hence, he is paying the taxes in respect of the schedule property with Uttarahalli Sub-Division, BBMP. 5. The defendant No.1 claims to be owner of the schedule property and tried several times to interfere with the suit schedule property and the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property. That on 18.10.2009, the defendants along with the supporters and rowdy elements came and tried to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police, but they failed to entertain the complaint and advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court since the dispute is civil in nature. Hence, without any alternative, the suit is filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 6. The defendant No.1 in pursuance of suit summons appeared through the counsel and filed the written statement contending that the averments made in the plaint are false, frivolous and vexatious. With malafide intention to make wrongful gain, the said suit is filed. The defendants contended that in fact the suit schedule property is a part of property in Survey No.39 of Yelachenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which belongs to one Dr. H. Anjanappa. It is his self-acquired property and he purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 30.5.1973. The entire extent is 5 acres 5 guntas. The son of Dr. H. Anjanappa, one Sri A. Devaraj, out of 5 acres 5 guntas purchased 3 acres of land on the northern side in Survey No.39 from his father. The said sale deed was signed by the other two sons of Dr. H. Anjanappa, namely Sri A. Shivakumar and Sri A. Shankar. The said sale deed was registered on 18.9.1987 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Madras, Tamil Nadu. The said Sri A. Devaraj, in turn sold a portion of his property including the schedule property in favour of Sri G. N. Krishna Murthy and Sri J.R. Prahlada Rao under two registered sale deeds dated 22.10.1992. The defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property bearing site No.18 from the said G. N. Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 19.2.2004. The defendant No.1 also purchased the adjacent property No.19/39. 7. The defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property bearing site No.18 from the said G. N. Krishnamurthy under a registered sale deed dated 19.2.2004. The defendant No.1 also purchased the adjacent property No.19/39. 7. It is also the case of the defendant No.1 that he had filed two suits in O.S.Nos.5589/2007 and 5590/2007 before the City Civil Court against the vendors of the plaintiffs, namely Sri A. Shankar and others. The Court was pleased to grant interim order against the defendants in the said suits on 20.8.2007. Even though the orders were operating against the defendants in the said suits, he did not obey the orders of the Hon’ble Court. Hence, the defendants herein sought the police protection and the Court was pleased to direct the jurisdictional police vide order dated 28.10.2009 to give protection to defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 after purchasing the property, put up a compound wall around the above said properties and also put up one small shed in between the two sites. Thus, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. When such being the case, the plaintiff herein, often and often interfered with the property of the defendants. The defendants contended that the plaintiff is also aware of the suit filed by the defendants against the vendor of the plaintiffs. But with a malafide intention to knock off the valuable property, the plaintiff is making hectic efforts to dispossess the defendants. The plaintiff has suppressed the pendency of the two suits filed by the defendants and has not approached the Court with clean hands. The defendants have denied each of the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaintiff is not having any semblance of right in respect of the suit schedule property and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 8. The defendants also filed the additional written statement. It is contended that the father of Sri A. Devaraj executed the sale deed in his favour vide sale deed dated 18.9.1987. On the said date, the brother of Sri A.Devaraj by name Sri A. Shankar had also purchased the property from his father to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas by virtue of a sale deed dated 18.9.1987 and the remaining land of 15 guntas which is kharab land was not entitled for any alienation under the law. On the said date, the brother of Sri A.Devaraj by name Sri A. Shankar had also purchased the property from his father to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas by virtue of a sale deed dated 18.9.1987 and the remaining land of 15 guntas which is kharab land was not entitled for any alienation under the law. The schedule property does not come under the property purchased by the alleged vendor of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed. The schedule property is within the boundary of Survey No.39 purchased by Sri A. Devaraj. The plaintiff has not been in possession or in ownership of the schedule property. No material is produced that he has been in possession and he is the owner. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below famed the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction and interference of the defendant in enjoying the suit schedule property by the plaintiff? 3. What decree or order? Additional issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property, as contended in the plaint? 9. The plaintiff in O.S.No.7174/2009 filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction contending that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the house property bearing No.18/39, Govardhan Garden, Yelachenahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore, which is morefully described in the schedule. It is contended that originally the suit property is the ancestral property of vendor plaintiff Sri A. Shiva Kumar. The father of Sri A. Shiva Kumar, namely Dr. H. Anjanappa had acquired the said property and other composite properties through registered sale deed dated 13.5.1973. Dr. H. Anjanappa died leaving behind his children as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. After the death of Dr. H. Anjanappa, his properties have been devolved on his children and the katha of the said property has been transferred in the name of his elder son by name Sri A. Devaraj. Dr. H. Anjanappa died leaving behind his children as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. After the death of Dr. H. Anjanappa, his properties have been devolved on his children and the katha of the said property has been transferred in the name of his elder son by name Sri A. Devaraj. The vendor of the plaintiff Sri A. Shiva Kumar has come out of the joint family and he has taken the share over the said properties through family palpatti entered among the family members on 10.7.1992. By virtue of the said family palpatti, the vendor of the plaintiff Sri A. Shiva Kumar became the absolute owner in respect of the above said property and also he has been continued his possession over the said property. That on 30.8.2002, the said Sri A. Shiva Kumar has further claimed share over other properties of the joint family in respect of property bearing Survey No.40/1 of Yelachenahalli Village and hence the joint family members have entered into one more partition through which the share of the plaintiff in respect of the property bearing Survey No.40/1 has been given to him. The said Sri A. Shiva Kumar has sold a portion of property to an extent of 25 guntas in Survey No.39 in favour of Sri K.H. Khan and retained the above said property to the extent of 1 acre 5 guntas. Subsequently, the khatha of the said property has made out in the name of Sri A. Shiva Kumar and mutated in his name as per M.R.No.3/2003-04 and also his name is reflected in pahani. It is contended that the survey has been conducted in respect of the property bearing No.39. Accordingly, the schedule property has been demarked as per resurvey as Hissa No.2. It clearly shows that Hissa No.2 in Survey No.39 belongs to Sri A. Shiva Kumar. The revenue documents clearly shows that Sri A. Shiva Kumar was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment over the above said property. Subsequently, he formed the sites and sold in favour of other purchasers. The plaintiff is also one of the purchaser who purchased the schedule property from Sri A. Shiva Kumar vide sale deed dated 28.1.2005. The revenue documents clearly shows that Sri A. Shiva Kumar was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment over the above said property. Subsequently, he formed the sites and sold in favour of other purchasers. The plaintiff is also one of the purchaser who purchased the schedule property from Sri A. Shiva Kumar vide sale deed dated 28.1.2005. Subsequently the khatha has been transferred in his name in exercise of his right both possessory and ownership and the same is in enjoyment of the plaintiff in the records and register of Nagarasabhe and Raja Rajeshwarinagar, Bangalore and has been paying the taxes. Now the property comes within the purview of BBMP and he is paying the taxes to Uttarahalli Sub-Division, BBMP. 10. The plaintiff contends that the defendant No.1 claims to be the owner of the schedule property. One Sri S.Pattabhiramachar has purchased the schedule property in the year 1992 and subsequently, the defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the schedule property from Sri S.Pattabhiramachar under registered sale deed dated 23.2.2004. The said document claims to be executed by Sri A. Devaraj, who was in no way concerned with the schedule property in favour of Sri S.Pattabhiramachar. By that time, the said Sri A. Devaraj has relinquished his right over the schedule property by giving share in favour of his brother Sri A. Shiva Kumar by virtue of family palpatti and hence the said sale deeds have no entity and the said transfer in favour of Sri S.Pattabhiramachar and in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal and null and void. 11. The plaintiff contends that the defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property and they do not have any manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. That on 18.10.2009, the defendants along with the supporters and rowdy elements came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess him from the suit schedule property and the same was resisted with the help of his friends and well wishers. The plaintiff has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, but they failed to entertain the complaint, instead they advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court since the dispute is civil in nature. Hence, the present suit is filed for declaration and injunction. 12. The plaintiff has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, but they failed to entertain the complaint, instead they advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court since the dispute is civil in nature. Hence, the present suit is filed for declaration and injunction. 12. The defendant No.1 in pursuance of suit summons appeared through the counsel and filed the written statement contending that the averments made in the plaint are false, frivolous and vexatious. With a malafide intention to make wrongful gain, the said suit is filed. It is contended that in fact, the suit schedule property is a part of property in Survey No.39 of Yelachenahalli Village which belongs to one Dr. H. Anjanappa. It is a self-acquired property and he purchased the same vide sale deed dated 30.5.1973. The entire extent is 5 acres 5 guntas. The son of Dr. H. Anjanappa, Sri A. Devaraj purchased 3 acres of land on the northern side of Survey No.39 from his father. The said sale deed was signed by the other two sons of Dr. H.Anjanappa, namely Sri A. Shiva Kumar and Sri A. Shankar. The said sale deed was registered on 18.9.1987 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Madras, Tamil Nadu. The said Sri A. Devaraj, in turn sold the portion of his property including the schedule property in favour of Sri G.N. Krishna Murthy and Sri J.R. Prahlada Rao under two registered sale deeds dated 22.10.1992. The defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property bearing site No.18 from the said G. N. Krishnamurthy under registered sale deed dated 19.2.2004. The defendant No.1 also purchased the adjacent property No.19/39. 13. It is also the case of the defendant No.1 that he had filed two suits in O.S.No.5589/2007 and 5590/2007 before the City Civil Court against his vendors namely Sri A. Shankar and others. The Court was pleased to grant interim order against the defendants in the said suits on 20.8.2007. The defendants in the said suits disobeyed the orders. Hence, defendant No.1 herein sought the police protection and the Court was pleased to direct the jurisdictional police to give protection to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 after purchasing the property, put up a compound wall around the above suit property and also put up one small shed in between the two sites. Thus, defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The defendant No.1 after purchasing the property, put up a compound wall around the above suit property and also put up one small shed in between the two sites. Thus, defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. When such being the case, the plaintiff, often and often is interfering with the property of the defendants. The plaintiff is also aware of the suit filed by the defendants against the vendor of the plaintiff. With a malafide intention to knock off the valuable property, the plaintiff is making hectic efforts to dispossess the defendants. The plaintiff has suppressed the pendency of the two suits filed by the defendants and has not approached the Court with clean hands. The defendants have denied each of the averments of the plaint and contended that the plaintiff is not having any semblance of right in respect of the suit schedule property and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 14. The defendant No.1 also filed the additional written statement. It is contended that the father of Sri A. Devraj executed the sale deed in his favour vide sale deed dated 18.9.1997. On the said date, the brother of Sri A. Devray by name Sri A. Shankar had also purchased from his father the property to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas by virtue of a sale deed dated 18.9.1987 and the remaining land to an extent of 15 guntas which is kharab land is not entitled for any alienation under the law. The schedule property does not come under the property purchased by the alleged vendor of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed. The schedule property contain boundary of Survey No.39 purchased by Sri A. Devaraj. The plaintiff has not been in possession or in ownership of the schedule property. No material is produced that he has been in possession and he is the owner. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the suit. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below has famed the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction and interference of the defendant in enjoying the suit schedule property by the plaintiff? 3. What decree or order? Additional issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged obstruction and interference of the defendant in enjoying the suit schedule property by the plaintiff? 3. What decree or order? Additional issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property, as contended in the plaint? 15. The plaintiff in O.S.No.7102/2009 to substantiate his claim examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 23 and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and vendor as P.W.3. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and examined his vendor as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 35. 16. The plaintiff in O.S.No.7174/2009 examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 14 and examined one witness as P.W.2 and vendor as P.W.3. The defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and also examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 38. 17. The Court below after hearing the arguments of the plaintiff counsel and the defendants’ counsel in both the suits, dismissed the suits of the respective plaintiffs. Hence, both the plaintiffs have filed these two appeals before this Court. 18. The grounds of appeal in both the appeals are the same. In both the appeals, it is contended that the Court below grossly erred in holding additional issue in negative, the Trial Court ought to have considered the same as a separate issue of validity or otherwise the alleged deed dated 18.9.1987 executed by Dr. H. Anjanappa in favour of his son Sri A. Devaraj, which is hit by Section 28 of the Indian Registration Act. The Trial Court failed to interfere with the transactions of the sale deed dated 18.9.1987 between the father and the son. 19. The Court below ought to have held that whether Sri A. Devaraj had any exclusive right in respect of the suit schedule property to execute the sale deed in favour of Sri H.N. Krishna Murthy. The sale deed dated 18.9.1987 itself is a forged document and it cannot be considered. It is contended that the alleged sale deed executed by Dr. H. Anjanappa in favour of Sri A. Devaraj does not contain the signature of Dr. The sale deed dated 18.9.1987 itself is a forged document and it cannot be considered. It is contended that the alleged sale deed executed by Dr. H. Anjanappa in favour of Sri A. Devaraj does not contain the signature of Dr. H. Anjanappa and Dr. H. Anjanappa is a doctor. But the document discloses his thumb impression. It clearly establishes that deliberately the said document is forged by putting thumb impression of Dr. H. Anjanappa. The said serious issue raised in the suit has not been discussed by the Court below and further the said sale deeds were executed in Tamil Nadu and the said Sub-Registrar was not having any jurisdiction to execute the sale deeds. Inspite of it, the Court below has committed an error. 20. The Trial Court ought to have considered that the sons and daughters of Dr. H. Anjanappa were residing together in the joint family till 10.7.1992. The children of Dr. H. Anjanappa got partitioned the properties of their joint family under the document of palpatti on 10.7.1992 as per Ex.P.17 and the learned Judge failed to consider the said aspect and that the said Sri A. Devaraj was not having any independent and exclusive right in respect of joint family property to execute the sale deed in favour of Sri Krishna Murthy. 21. The Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suits on the ground that the plaintiffs have not sought for a relief which invalidated the sale deed dated 18.9.1987. The Court below also failed to take note that the defendants never produced the sale deed and failed to mark any such documents and the plaintiffs came to know only on the basis of the copy of the documents furnished by the defendants in the case and the decision of the Trial Judge is contrary to the facts. Hence, the impugned judgment is bad in law. 22. D.W.1 has specifically admitted that he has not produced any original documents and the Trial Judge has failed in noticing that the property described in Ex.D.4 – sale deed dated 22.10.1992 is all together different to that of the property described in the plaint schedule. The Court below also failed to take note of the fact that the property described in the said sale deed was a house roofed with Mangalore tiles but the schedule property is a vacant site. The Court below also failed to take note of the fact that the property described in the said sale deed was a house roofed with Mangalore tiles but the schedule property is a vacant site. Hence, having considered the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, it suffers from legal infirmities. Hence, prayed this Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed in both the suits and to allow the appeals and grant the decree as sought in the plaint. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals would contend that the Court below has failed to take note of the fact that the property was purchased by Dr. H.Anjanappa in the year 1973 and till the death of the said Dr. H.Anjanappa all were living in the joint family. The Court below also failed to take note of the fact that immediately after the death of Dr. H.Anjanappa, his children have got partitioned the property in the year 1992 in terms of palpatti, which is marked as Ex.P.17. The Court below also failed to take note of the fact that the documents which have been relied upon by the defendants are all concocted and forged documents and the document of the year 1987 was not signed by Dr. H. Anjanappa and it contains left thumb impression and there was no explanation for left thumb impression. It is also contended that the sale deeds were registered at Tamil Nadu and the properties are situated in Bengaluru and the right of the vendor of the plaintiffs has not been denied. The Court below accepted the sale deed registered at Tamil Nadu, which does not create any right in favour of the vendor of the defendants. The very said sale deed is nonest in the eye of law and inspite of the same, the Court below accepted the sale deeds which have been registered in Tamil Nadu. Hence, the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel also would contend that the Court below did not consider Section 28 of the Registration Act. 24. The very said sale deed is nonest in the eye of law and inspite of the same, the Court below accepted the sale deeds which have been registered in Tamil Nadu. Hence, the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel also would contend that the Court below did not consider Section 28 of the Registration Act. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh in the case of SURAM RAMANA REDDY AND ANOTHER v. THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRARI, DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE DISTRICT COURT COMPOUND AND OTHERS reported in 2012 (5) ALD 464 and brought to my notice discussion made with regard to Section 28 of the Registration Act. 25. The learned counsel also in his arguments relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of SHEO SAHOY BHAGUT AND OTHERS v. BAIJ NATH TEWARI decided on 8.6.1891, wherein it is held that looking to Sections 28, 31 and 32, that the Sub-Registrar had no power to register the document, unless it by virtue of Sections 7 and 30 of the Registration Act. He had no doubt the authority to do so in this case (the office of the Registrar of the District and that of the Sub-Registrar having been amalgamated and the Sub-Registrar having been placed in charge of the amalgamated office) if he chose to exercise the discretion vested in him by Section 30. But the Lower Appellate Court has found that the registration was as a matter of fact not made under that section, and, indeed, one fails to see bow it could be otherwise, bearing in mind that the document describes the property as lying within the sub-district of Bhagulpur and not in the sub-district of Banka or any other sub-district, and therefore the officer to whom it was presented for registration was not called upon to exercise the discretion vested in him by that section. 26. The learned counsel relying upon these two judgments would contend that the very registration of the document at Tamil Nadu does not confer any right in favour of the vendor of the defendants and the same is nonest in the eye of law and the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon these sale deeds. 27. 26. The learned counsel relying upon these two judgments would contend that the very registration of the document at Tamil Nadu does not confer any right in favour of the vendor of the defendants and the same is nonest in the eye of law and the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon these sale deeds. 27. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would contend that the Court below, considering both oral and documentary evidence has rightly appreciated the contention of the defendants holding that the plaintiffs have not proved their case. It is also contended that the affidavits of Sri A. Shankar and sisters is clear that they admit sale in favour of their brother Sri A. Devaraju by the father. P.W.3, the vendor of the plaintiffs, who has been examined before the Court was not subjected to cross-examination. The evidence of P.W.2, the neighborer of the plaintiffs also does not help the case of the plaintiffs. The Court below has taken note of documentary evidence i.e., Exs.D3 and D4 and also subsequent documents which establishes the fact that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from the rightful owner and hence, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the judgment and it does not require any interference of this Court. 28. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, in support of his contention relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 1103 in the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and Ors. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that in the appeal filed against dismissal of suit for declaration of title and injunction wherein no plea as to availability of easementary rights was raised, the High Court could not while rejecting the plea of the plaintiffs that they were owners of the suit property, grant the relief of injunction in regard to an easementary right by assuming that they had an easementary right to use the schedule property as a passage. The grant of such relief by converting a suit for title into a suit for enforcement of easementary rights is violative of fundamental rule that a Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The grant of such relief by converting a suit for title into a suit for enforcement of easementary rights is violative of fundamental rule that a Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The counsel also would contend that when the case is not specifically pleaded and when no material is placed before the Court to substantiate the contention of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are is not entitled for any decree. 29. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 2966 in the case of T.K. Mohammed Abubucker (D) Thr. L. Rs. And Ors. Vs P.S.M. Ahamed Abdul Khader and Ors. and would contend that reversal of finding not tenable, in the absence of clear and acceptable evidence and in a suit for declaration of title and possession, the burden is on the plaintiff to make out his title and entitlement of the discretionary relief. He further contends that the plaintiffs cannot succeed in their case, based on the weakness of the defendants and while seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession, the plaintiffs have to prove their own case and not on the weakness of the defendants. 30. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2014 SC 937 in the case of Union of India Vs. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and others and brought to my notice Section 34 of Specific Relief Act wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in a suit for declaration of title, onus to prove his title is on the plaintiff and he cannot succeed on the weakness of defendant’s case and based on the revenue records, declaratory relief cannot be granted and revenue records are not the proof of title. 31. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and also keeping in view the rival contentions of both the parties, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are : (i) Whether the Court below has committed an error in dismissing both the suits and it requires interference of this Court? (ii) Whether the Court below has committed an error in not considering Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 and whether it requires interference of this Court? (iii) What order? Point No.(ii): 32. (ii) Whether the Court below has committed an error in not considering Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 and whether it requires interference of this Court? (iii) What order? Point No.(ii): 32. The main contention of the plaintiffs in both the suits is that they have purchased the property from one Sri A. Shankar and Sri A. Shivakumar, who are the sons of Dr. H. Anjanappa. It is also the case of the defendants that the property originally belongs to Dr. H. Anjanappa and Dr.H.Anjanappa in turn sold the property during his life time in favour of Sri A. Devaraju. The said A. Devaraju formed the sites and sold the property in favour of one Sri G.N. Krishnamurthy and the said G.N. Krishnamurthy in turn sold the property in favour of the defendants. 33. Having considered the averments made in the plaint and also the written statement, the Court below has framed certain issues with regard to possession and also whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that the defendants in both the suits claim that the property was sold in favour of Sri A. Devaraju by Dr. H. Anjanappa. Having considered the rival contentions of both the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that originally, the property belongs to Dr. H. Anjanappa, who had purchased the property in the year 1973. It is the case of the defendants that the said Dr. H. Anjanappa sold the property in favour of Sri A. Devaraju in the year 1987. It is pertinent to note that Sri A. Shankar also claims that there was a sale deed in his favour in the year 1987 and the vendor of the defendants also claim that there was a sale deed in the year 1987 and both the sale deeds came into existence on the same day. 34. It is an admitted fact that the property was registered at Hosur, Tamil Nadu State. It is also an admitted fact that property is situate within the limits of Bengaluru. It is pertinent to note that Ex.D3, under which the vendor of the defendants purchased the property was sold by Dr. H. Anjanappa in favour of the vendor of the defendants. It is also an admitted fact that property is situate within the limits of Bengaluru. It is pertinent to note that Ex.D3, under which the vendor of the defendants purchased the property was sold by Dr. H. Anjanappa in favour of the vendor of the defendants. It is also important to note that said Anjanappa is an educated and qualified person, who is a Doctor by profession. It is emerged in the evidence of the witnesses that said Anjanappa has put his thumb impression on the sale deed and hence, the plaintiffs contend that the said sale deed is forged and concocted document. There is no explanation on the part of the defendants with regard to the thumb impression. The defendants also admit that the said Anjanappa had put his thumb impression on the sale deed. The vendor of the plaintiff in O.S.No.7102/2009 claims that there was a sale deed on the very same day and the Court below has also observed the same. It is also important to note that the plaintiffs have claimed that there was a partition in the family after the death of Dr. H. Anjanappa and there was palpatti. The defendants have denied the said palpatti. 35. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that all of them were living together till the death of Dr. H. Anjanappa and after the death of Dr. H. Anjanappa, they have got partitioned the property. Now the question before this Court is that whether the sale deeds executed in favour of Sri A. Shankar and Sri A. Devaraju are valid in the eye of law. Admittedly, the sale deeds are executed at Hosur, Tamil Nadu State. As already pointed out, the property situates in Bengaluru. 36. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs have relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court and so also the judgment of the Culcutta High Court with regard to Section 28 of the Registration Act. Hence, I would like to refer the proviso to Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, before considering the rival contentions of the parties, which reads as follows: “28. Place for registering documents relating to land. Hence, I would like to refer the proviso to Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, before considering the rival contentions of the parties, which reads as follows: “28. Place for registering documents relating to land. Save as in this Part otherwise provided, every document mentioned in Section 17, subsection (1), clauses (a), (b), (c) [(d) and (e), section 17, subsection (2), insofar as such document affects immovable property,] and section 18, clauses (a), (b) [(c) and (cc),] shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate.” 37. Having considered the proviso to Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908, it stipulates the place for registering documents relating to land and it is clear that the document shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. 38. The Andhra Pradesh High Court while dealing with Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 in the judgment supra has observed that the Section 28 of the Act is almost similar to the one enunciated under Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to that provision, if a suit is to be filed in respect of the immovable properties situated within the jurisdiction of different Courts, it may be instituted in any Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the presentation of the documents by respondents 5 to 8 before the 1st respondent is in any way illegal. It may be true that the parallel transactions have taken place in respect of same item of property. That however is not at all the concern of the Sub-Registrar. Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh Rules framed under the Registration Act mandates that it is not part of the duty of the registering officer to enquire into the validity of the document brought before him for registration. It is for the concerned parties to workout their remedies by approaching the Courts of competent jurisdiction. The case on hand is with regard to questioning of registration of the document by presenting the same before the different Sub-Registrar. 39. It is for the concerned parties to workout their remedies by approaching the Courts of competent jurisdiction. The case on hand is with regard to questioning of registration of the document by presenting the same before the different Sub-Registrar. 39. In the judgment of the Calcutta High Court which has been referred supra, it is categorically observed that looking into Sections 28, 31 and 32 of the Registration Act held that the Sub-Registrar as such had no power to register the document, unless it be by virtue of Sections 7 and 30 of the Registration Act. He had no doubt the authority to do so in this case (the office of the Registrar of the district and that of the Sub-Registrar having been amalgamated and the Sub-Registrar having been placed in charge of the amalgamated office) if he choose to exercise the discretion vested in him by Section 30. But the Lower Appellate Court has found that the registration was as a matter of fact, not made under that section, and, indeed, one fails to see bow it could be otherwise, bearing in mind that the document describes the property as lying within the sub-district of Bhagulpur and not in the sub-district of Banka or any other sub-district, and therefore the officer to whom it was presented for registration was not called upon to exercise the discretion vested in him by that section. 40. The principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also proviso to Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 is clear that the document shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate. In the case on hand, defendants have not disputed the registration of the sale deed at Hosur, Tamil Nadu State and also not placed any material before the Court that the document was registered based on any relaxation of Section 28 of the Registration Act. It is not the case of the defendants also that there was a relaxation of Section 28 of the Registration Act and hence, it is permissible to register the document outside the State. 41. It is not the case of the defendants also that there was a relaxation of Section 28 of the Registration Act and hence, it is permissible to register the document outside the State. 41. Having considered the factual aspects in the case on hand, admittedly, the property situates at Bengaluru and the document was registered at Hosur, Tamil Nadu and there is no relaxation to register the document outside the State and hence, the document registered at Tamil Nadu becomes nonest in the eye of law. Apart from that, it is to be noted that if the document is registered at Bengaluru, there will be an entry in the concerned Sub-Registrar office that the document has been registered and in view of the said entry, the purchaser will also come to know that there was a sale transaction in respect of the very same property and if the property is registered at Hosur, Tamil Nadu, the same will not be entered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru. In addition to that, the defendants claim that their right is based on the sale deed and it is an admitted fact that Dr. H. Anjanappa is a Doctor by profession and he is a literate and he has put his thumb impression in the sale deed of the year 1987. Apart from that, the plaintiffs also contend that there was palpatti between the family of said Anjanappa in the year 1992, immediately after the death of said Anjanappa and in one suit, the same is marked as Ex.P14 and in another suit, the same is marked as Ex.P17. But the Court below, while considering those documents has held that the plaintiffs have not placed the said documents of partition before the Court and these are the aspects, which clearly discloses that the Court below did not apply its mind and no decision has been taken with regard to the fact that the document was registered at Hosur, Tamil Nadu and though it only discussed about the same, no finding was given. When such being the case, I am of the opinion that the Court below has committed an error in not appreciating the case on hand in a proper perspective. The Court below has failed to consider the proviso to Section 28 of the Registration Act and also failed to consider the documents Exs.P14 and 17 with regard to palpatti. When such being the case, I am of the opinion that the Court below has committed an error in not appreciating the case on hand in a proper perspective. The Court below has failed to consider the proviso to Section 28 of the Registration Act and also failed to consider the documents Exs.P14 and 17 with regard to palpatti. If the document is nonest in the eye of law, automatically, all the successor of said Dr.H. Anjanappa would succeed to the estate of the deceased. In this background, I am of the opinion that the Court has committed an error in not invoking Section 28 of the Registration Act and hence, the document which has been registered at Hosur, becomes nonest and hence, it does not confer any right in favour of the vendor of the defendants and so also the vendor of the plaintiffs, who claim their right based on the sale deed of Sri A. Shankar which also registered on the very same day. Hence, I answer point No.1 as ‘affirmative’. Point Nos.(i) and (iii): 42. The main contention of the plaintiffs before this Court is that the Court below has committed an error in not appreciating both oral and documentary evidence. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it is evident that the trial Court has made an observation that the plaintiffs did not examine their vendor. But it is noticed that the plaintiffs have examined its vendor as P.W.3 and he was not subjected to cross-examination. The Court below while considering the case of the plaintiffs has made an observation that plaintiffs’ vendor has not been examined and at the same time, the same yardstick would have been applied by the Court considering the defence of the parties. The defendants have also not examined the original vendor, who has executed the sale deed in favour of the vendor of the defendants and those persons are the right persons to speak with regard to the sale deed executed in the year 1987 in favour of Sri A. Shankar as well as in favour of Sri A. Devaraju. 43. The defendants have also not examined the original vendor, who has executed the sale deed in favour of the vendor of the defendants and those persons are the right persons to speak with regard to the sale deed executed in the year 1987 in favour of Sri A. Shankar as well as in favour of Sri A. Devaraju. 43. As already pointed out, when the document was registered at Hosur Sub-Registrar office, which was not having any jurisdiction to register the document and when there was a bar under Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the document becomes nonest, the Court below while considering the said contention did not form its opinion with regard to the validity of the document. Apart from that, different yardstick is applied in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not examined the vendor, when the defendants are also claiming the right based on the sale deed executed by said Dr. H. Anjanappa in favour of Sri A. Shankar and Sri A. Devaraju and when the question of law is involved with regard to the validity of those documents and they have also not been examined their vendors before the Court below, there cannot be two yardsticks and the trial Court has proceeded on a wrong notion. No doubt, in a suit for declaration seeking for the relief of injunction, the plaintiffs have to prove their case on their own title and not on the weakness of the defendants, there is no dispute with regard to the settled principles of law laid down in the judgments referred supra by the defendants. But in the case on hand, it is to be noted that the property originally belongs to Dr. H. Anjanappa and it is the contention of the defendant that said Anjanappa had executed the sale deed but, there is no explanation why the said Anjanappa had put his thumb impression while executing the sale deed and Sri A. Devaraju has not been examined before the Court. Though Sri. A. Shankar has been examined as P.W.3 in the suit, he was not subjected for cross-examination. Both of them have to explain the circumstances with regard to attesting the document by left thumb impression. 44. It is also the contention of the defendants counsel that other son Sri Shivakumar was also signatory to the said document. Though Sri. A. Shankar has been examined as P.W.3 in the suit, he was not subjected for cross-examination. Both of them have to explain the circumstances with regard to attesting the document by left thumb impression. 44. It is also the contention of the defendants counsel that other son Sri Shivakumar was also signatory to the said document. Throughout in the cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 had categorically denied the said contention while in the cross-examination of D.W.1 also, it is the case of the plaintiffs that sale deeds allegedly executed by Dr. H. Anjanappa in favour of other two sons are forged document and the fact of affixing thumb impression substantiates the contention of the plaintiffs. When such being the case, the Court below ought to have considered all these aspects of the matter, when the defendants claim their title based on those documents and the plaintiff also claim the title based on sale deed executed by said Anjanappa. 45. This Court has already held that the document executed by Anjanappa is nonest in the eye of law. Keeping in view the observations made by this Court and when the parties are claiming declaratory relief based on the said documents, the relief of declaration cannot be granted in O.S.No.7102/2009. 46. The Court below while considering the contention of the plaintiffs in the suit erroneously observed that the palpatti is not produced even though the same is produced as Exs.P.14 and P.17 in the said suits. The said document is not registered document and on perusal of the said document also, it is evident that share is given in favour of the son Shivakumar and the same is not proved by examining the signatures in the said document. However, it is clear that the property originally belongs to Anjanappa and this Court has held that the sale deeds executed in favour of Sri. A. Shankar and Sri. A. Devaraju is nonest in the eye of law. Hence all the children of said Anjanappa succeed to the estate of Anjanappa. The vendor Sri.Shivakumar is also one of the heir of said Anjanappa and hence the plaintiff in O.S.No.7174/2009 succeed in the suit and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the plaint. 47. A. Devaraju is nonest in the eye of law. Hence all the children of said Anjanappa succeed to the estate of Anjanappa. The vendor Sri.Shivakumar is also one of the heir of said Anjanappa and hence the plaintiff in O.S.No.7174/2009 succeed in the suit and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the plaint. 47. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The RFA No.785/2013 is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7174/2009. The plaintiff is declared as the owner of the suit schedule property and granted permanent injunction as sought in the plaint. (ii) The appeal No.784/2013 is dismissed. The parties to bear their own cost. (iii) The office is directed to send the records to the trial Court forthwith.