JUDGMENT : Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of the Sub-ordinate Judge, Arani, North Arcot District in O.S.No.27 of 1985 dated 29.11.1988. A. The Appeal Suit : This Appeal Suit arises out of the common judgment and decree dated 29.11.1988, passed by the Subordinate Judge, Arani in O.S.No.27 of 1985 and O.S.No.20 of 1986. 1.1. O.S.No.27 of 1985 is filed by one K.R.Renganatha Mudaliar against Ranganeyagi and her husband Rajamanicka Gounder, praying that the defendants should handover the possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff. O.S.No.20 of 1986 is filed by Ranganeyagi Ammal against the said K.R.Renganatha Mudaliar, to declare the sale deed dated 19.05.1983 as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. For the sake of convenience, the parties namely, Ranganeyagi, is referred to in this judgment as “the Vendor” and K.R.Renganatha Mudaliar as “the Purchaser”. 1.2. The case of the parties in their plaint in their respective suits and in the written statement in the counter suit is identical. Since both are cross suits in respect of the same transaction and between the same parties in respect of the same suit schedule properties, the same was taken up by way of joint trial and was disposed of by a judgment. This appeal suit was initially dismissed on the ground that a single Appeal Suit against the common judgments in two suits is not maintainable. Upon filing Letters Patent Appeal a Division Bench ruled that a single Appeal is maintainable and remanded the Appeal Suit to be heard on merits and accordingly the matter is now taken up for disposal on merits. B. The Case of the Purchaser : 2. The case of the Purchaser is that the suit property belonged to the Vendor. The Vendor and her husband sold the property to the Purchaser for a total sale consideration of Rs.47,000/-. On 19.05.1983, the sale deed was duly executed by the Vendor and it was witnessed by her husband. It is mentioned in the sale deed that an advance of Rs.30,000/- was received for payment of loans. After receiving the said advance amount and signing the sale deed, the Vendor did not discharge the loan amount and did not come forward to get the document registered. It is mentioned in the sale deed that an advance of Rs.30,000/- was received for payment of loans. After receiving the said advance amount and signing the sale deed, the Vendor did not discharge the loan amount and did not come forward to get the document registered. After the exchange of legal notices, the Purchaser, therefore, sought compulsory registration of the sale deed under Section 74 of the Registration Act. The said petition in O.P.No.2 of 1984 was ordered by the Sub Registrar, Kannamangalam, who had the powers of the District Registrar under the Act, after a detailed enquiry. Thus, the said sale deed dated 19.05.1983 was duly registered. After the sale, the defendant was bound to quit and deliver the vacant possession to the Purchaser and therefore, the Purchaser filed O.S.No.27 of 1985 to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property and to award the costs of the suit. C. The Case of the Vendor: 3. The case of the Vendor is that she is the owner of the property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The Purchaser agreed to purchase the house property for a total sale consideration of Rs.75,000/- and paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- and a balance amount of Rs.65,000/- had to be paid. The Vendor had to discharge the debts namely pro-note debt of due to one Lakshmanan S/o Thandavaraya Gounder of Nellore, mortgage debt due to one Hameed Sahib of Kannamangalam, and the debt due to Co-Operative Housing Bank, Arni. The Purchaser had insisted that the sale deed can be written for a sum of Rs.20,000/- stating that the stamp duty for Rs.75,000/- will be more and if the value is more than Rs.50,000/- , the procedure of income tax clearance will also arise. The Vendor did not object to the said course of action. The Purchaser got stamp papers required for the value of Rs.20,000/- and had written the document with the help of a scribe. In the said document, the figures were written only in pencil. The sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-, the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- were all written with a pencil. The Purchaser represented that if the value is more as per the guideline value in the Sub Registrar's Office, it can be altered accordingly and therefore, the entries were made in pencil. The Purchaser thus paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- alone. The sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-, the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- were all written with a pencil. The Purchaser represented that if the value is more as per the guideline value in the Sub Registrar's Office, it can be altered accordingly and therefore, the entries were made in pencil. The Purchaser thus paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- alone. But however, failed to pay the balance of Rs.65,000/- inspite of repeated demands. Thereafter, clandestinely, the Purchaser issued a notice on 25.07.1993 on false allegations as if the total sale consideration was Rs.47,000/- and Rs.30,000/- was paid as advance. The Vendor sent a reply notice on 29.07.1983. The Purchaser initiated proceedings for compulsory registration in O.P.No.2 of 1983. The Vendor had contested the enquiry but, the Sub Registrar by his order dated 23.11.1984 ordered the registration of the document. The signature was obtained from the Vendor in a document, in which, the facts and figures were written by the pencil and thereafter, with the help of the scribe subsequently it was altered to Rs.47,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/- and the advance amount was altered to Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/-. The Vendor never agreed to sell the property for only Rs.47,000/-. Thus, it is an act of fraud and misrepresentation and therefore, the sale deed is to be declared as null and void. Therefore, the vendor filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 1985. The said suit was subsequently transferred to be tried along with the present suit and was re-numbered as O.S.No.20 of 1986. D. The Issues & The Trial : 4. On the said pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following nine issues in the suit filed by the Purchaser: 1.Whether the second defendant had executed a sale deed dated 19.05.1983 after obtaining a sum of Rs.47,000/-? 2. Whether the first defendant had obtained a sum of Rs.30,000/- for payment of loan? 3. Whether the second defendant had signed as attesting witness in the sale deed executed by the first defendant? 4.Whether the second defendant is estopped from contending that they will not vacate and handover possession? 5.Whether the sale deed dated 19.05.1989 was fraudulently, materially altered or created? 6.Whether the sale deed dated 19.05.1973 is valid? practicable? Whether the plaintiff had no right from the same? 7. Whether there is cause of action for the plaintiff? 8.Whether the Court fee paid is in order? 5.Whether the sale deed dated 19.05.1989 was fraudulently, materially altered or created? 6.Whether the sale deed dated 19.05.1973 is valid? practicable? Whether the plaintiff had no right from the same? 7. Whether there is cause of action for the plaintiff? 8.Whether the Court fee paid is in order? 9.Whether the suit is maintainable in law? 4.1. In the suit filed by the Vendor, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court: 1.Whether the sale deed is valid? 2.Whether the suit as framed is maintainable, since the cancellation of the sale deed has not been specifically prayed? 3.Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fees are paid? 4.Whether the plaintiffs should be estopped from finding fault with the sale deed? 5.To what reliefs? 4.2. On the said issues, the parties let in evidence. The Purchaser was examined as P.W.1 and on his behalf, one Subramani, Murugesapillai and Natarajan were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4. Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the Purchaser. The Vendor examined herself as D.W.1 and her husband was examined as D.W.2 and one Lakshmanan was examined as D.W.3. Exs.B-1 to B-13 were marked. E. The Findings of the Trial Court : 5. The Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider the case of the parties and by a common judgment dated 29.11.1988, found that when the Vendor in her evidence accepted that unless the sale deed is duly filled up including the sale consideration and the advance amount, she will not sign and she has further admitted that she actually had received Rs.30,000/-, and thus, found that the case of fraud as alleged by the Vendor has not been proved. The Trial Court also found that one of the loans which is mentioned as pending was not originally mentioned in Ex.A-1 and therefore, no importance can be given as the said creditor is a relative of the Vendor. The Trial Court held that the subject matter i.e., the sale deed is not a product of fraud and is valid and therefore, the Purchaser would be entitled to possession upon deposit of the balance sum of Rs.17,000/- within three months from the date of the judgment and accordingly disposed both the suits. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal suit is filed. F. The Submissions: 6. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal suit is filed. F. The Submissions: 6. Heard, Mr.V. Vijay Shankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for eighth respondent. 6.1. Mr.Vijay Shankar, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Trial Court has not taken note of the oral and documentary evidence and has thoroughly ignored the consistent case of the Vendors that they had received only an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and ignored the admission of P.W.1 to P.W.3 regarding the facts that the amounts were written in pencil. The Trial Court omitted to note that this case is very unusual inasmuch as Ex.A-1, sale deed is written in the Vendor's house. As many as 5 attesting witnesses have signed in the sale deed which also goes to show that all was not well. As a matter of fact, the District Registrar in his order (Ex.B-5) has categorically found that three of the witnesses were not present at the time of execution. Therefore, the impugned sale deed in Ex.A-1 is not a valid document. 6.2. Mr. Vijay Shankar would further submit that the Purchaser is a stamp Vendor. He has deliberately not produced his books of account to show, as to how many stamp papers were in his possession as on the relevant date. This fact has been duly brought out in the cross-examination. As a matter of fact, the Purchaser is a person with bad antecedents and his stamp vending license had been cancelled for certain improper actions on his part. Such order was also marked as Ex.B-9. It may be seen from the oral testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 that as a matter of fact the advance amount and balance amount were originally written in pencil. P.W.3 specifically admits that in his 30 years of service as a scribe, the instant case was the first time where he wrote the above particulars with a pencil. The most crucial factor which the Trial Court brushed aside is that if the case of the Purchaser is correct, then being the Stamp Vendor, he would have brought stamp papers being 12%, commensurate to the sale consideration of Rs.47,000/-. But however, he brought only stamp papers of Rs.2,400/- which only corroborates the Vendor's case that in the sale deed consideration was to be mentioned as Rs.20,000/-. But however, he brought only stamp papers of Rs.2,400/- which only corroborates the Vendor's case that in the sale deed consideration was to be mentioned as Rs.20,000/-. As a matter of fact, the Purchaser has categorically admitted that even before the date of the sale deed, he had ascertained from the Sub Registrar's Office that the value of the sale can be at Rs.47,000/- and if so, there was no necessity to write the sale consideration with a pencil and also to bring the stamp papers only for Rs.2,400/-. 6.3. Learned counsel would further submit that in Ex.B-2 (reply notice dated 29.07.1983), the entire sequence of events as it unfolded on 19.05.1983 is set out. The reply was given immediately after receipt of the legal notice dated 25.07.1983. It can be seen that in the entire deposition and the pleadings before the Sub Registrar as well as before the Court, the case of the Vendor and her husband has been consistent and there is no contradiction whatsoever. The Trial Court, misread the evidence of the Vendor as if, she had admitted the receipt of a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The evidence ought to have been read as a whole and on a cumulative reading, it cannot be held that she has admitted the receipt of Rs.30,000/-. Similarly, the evidence of the Vendor regarding the fact that she will not sign the sale deed unless it is filled up is also an incorrect reading. The Trial Court, without considering the main issue regarding Ex.A-1, primarily concluded against the appellant only on consideration of Exs.B- 10 to B-13, which were only produced to show that the Vendor was having more debts and that she could not have agreed only for a sum of Rs.47,000/-. 6.4. The Learned Counsel would submit that when fraud has been played, the sale deed is invalid. The learned counsel referring to Sections 13 to 19 of the Indian Contract Act, would contend that the instant case would fall squarely within the ambit of fraud and misrepresentation. 6.5 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tarsem Singh Vs. The learned counsel referring to Sections 13 to 19 of the Indian Contract Act, would contend that the instant case would fall squarely within the ambit of fraud and misrepresentation. 6.5 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tarsem Singh Vs. Sukhminder Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 471 , more specifically on Paragraphs 29 to 33 to contend that the consent for a sale transaction should be of free consent and if it is discovered that it was suffering from a mistake of fact, then the transaction itself will be void. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 319 more specifically Paragraphs 15 to 18 and 25 to contend that Ex.A-1, sale deed is a complete act of fraud and once it is vitiated by fraud, the affair tainted with the fraud cannot be perpetuated. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment in Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Furu Ram and Another, (2011) 8 SCC 613 more specifically paragraphs 16 to 19 to contend that when the original intention was to evade stamp duty, that would also be termed as tax fraud. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. T.Suryachandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149 more specifically on paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 to contend that fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud should not be perpetuated. 6.6. Per contra, Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Purchaser, again taking this Court through the depositions, would submit that even though the Vendor had contended that she received only Rs.10,000/-, ultimately, in her cross examination, she agreed that she had received Rs.30,000/-. He would submit that until legal notice was issued by the Purchaser calling for the Vendor to come to the Sub Registrar's Office, the Vendor kept quiet. If she had signed the sale deed and if the amount had not been paid, she would not have kept quiet, especially, when the Vendor's husband was a retired Police Constable. He would submit that until legal notice was issued by the Purchaser calling for the Vendor to come to the Sub Registrar's Office, the Vendor kept quiet. If she had signed the sale deed and if the amount had not been paid, she would not have kept quiet, especially, when the Vendor's husband was a retired Police Constable. He would submit that the contention that only for Rs.2,400/- stamp paper was brought is without any substance, since the balance stamp fee can always be deposited as cash before the Sub Registrar. 6.7. The Learned Counsel would further submit that even though the scribe admits that initially the amounts were written with a pencil, later on, it is clearly mentioned that the amounts were written with ink at the time of signing of the sale deed. When negotiation were ongoing, before the finalisation, it was written in pencil and thereafter it was erased and ultimately it was written in pen. Therefore, there was no fraud or misrepresentation. A detailed enquiry was also immediately conducted by the District Registrar who also found the execution of the sale deed by the Vendor as a valid one and ordered for compulsory registration. 6.8. The learned counsel would submit that even the amount claimed by the Vendor as if, it was agreed for a sum of Rs.65,000/- is extremely high in the relevant year of transaction, given the fact that the suit property is located in Kannamangalam Village of Arni Taluk. The cross-examination of D.W.2, the husband of the Vendor, makes it clear that the case of the Vendor is that the balance sum of Rs.65,000/- was promised to be given on the very next day. If that be so, they neither called for the Purchaser to pay the said sum of Rs.65,000/- nor they made any attempt to return Rs.10,000/-. The signature has been obtained in the sale deed, the normal conduct would be to lodge a police complaint. The Learned Counsel would further submit that the Vendor has also admitted that subsequently, she had discharged the two mortgaged loans, which would itself prove that she had received more than Rs.10,000/-. The Learned Counsel would therefore submit that in this case the major amount was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The Learned Counsel would further submit that the Vendor has also admitted that subsequently, she had discharged the two mortgaged loans, which would itself prove that she had received more than Rs.10,000/-. The Learned Counsel would therefore submit that in this case the major amount was paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The Vendor had to pay off the mortgage amounts and thereafter was to come to the Sub Registrar's Office for registration and receive the balance sum of Rs.17,000/-. The signature was obtained in the sale deed itself and there is no other fraud or hanky panky in the transaction. It is a clear case that the Vendor has dragged her feet after execution of the sale deed and therefore, the compulsory registration was rightly ordered and the Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit by ordering payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.17,000/-. G. The Points for Consideration: 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by either side and perused the materials on record in this case. The following points arise for consideration in the instant case. (i) Whether the Purchaser was entitled to compulsory registration of Ex.A-1 and consequently to the relief of possession of the suit property ? (ii) Whether, the Vendor has established fraud on the part of the Purchaser in respect of the execution of Ex.A-1 Sale Deed ? (iii) To what relief the parties are entitled? H. On Point No. (i) : 7.1 Since both parties have filed cross suits and the matter has been taken up by way of joint trial, the cases of both parties have to be tested on the evidence on record, so as to answer these questions. 7.2. On A perusal of the sale deed in question, it can be seen that the sale consideration is mentioned in page No.1 and page No.2. In page No.3, the advance amount was mentioned as Rs.30,000/- and balance amount is mentioned as Rs.17,000/- in numbers. The total sale consideration is also mentioned as words in page No.3. On the last page i.e., Page No.9, again the market value of the property is mentioned as Rs.47,000/-. In page No.3, the advance amount was mentioned as Rs.30,000/- and balance amount is mentioned as Rs.17,000/- in numbers. The total sale consideration is also mentioned as words in page No.3. On the last page i.e., Page No.9, again the market value of the property is mentioned as Rs.47,000/-. Of the same, to the naked eye, the figures in all the places are written so naturally that it is hard to believe even the evidence of the Purchaser's side that initially, the figures were written in pencil and thereafter, where rubbed off and were written using ink. As a matter of fact, the sale deed contains several interpolations in page 1, thereafter in page 7 and page 8 and all those sentences, inserted thereafter, which are in all descriptions relating to the property can be seen of a slightly darker ink. On the other hand no difference can be seen in respect of the said amounts. On a closer scrutiny of the original sale deed in page 3, where the advance amount was written as Rs. 30,000/- it appears as though there was some correction and scraping in the upper layer of the stamp paper. In this regard, the scribe who wrote the sale deed namely Murugesa Pillai was examined on behalf of the Purchaser. The evidence in cross examination reads as follows:- 7.3. If that is the case of the scribe, then there is no way that the same would have been filled up in ink before the signature of the Vendor. As a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.1, the Purchaser is in contradiction to this. In his cross examination P.W.1 states as follows:- 7.4. Thus, it can be seen that not only regarding the advance amount and balance amount, even the measurements of the property which both according to the Purchaser as well as the scribe was taken before the writing of the sale deed and were noted down in a separate sheet, were also written in pencil, to be re-written in ink later. There are also interpolations in several sentences in the sale deed relating to the description of the property. In none of the places, initials of the Vendor or any person was found. Thus, it can be seen that there has been material alterations / filling up of the sale deed after the signature of the Vendor. There are also interpolations in several sentences in the sale deed relating to the description of the property. In none of the places, initials of the Vendor or any person was found. Thus, it can be seen that there has been material alterations / filling up of the sale deed after the signature of the Vendor. There is yet another circumstance in this case. As per the case of the Purchaser, the sale consideration was fixed 2 or 3 days before the date of sale deed i.e., on 19.05.1983. While, as per some of the witness, it was finalised only on 19.05.1983. It is the further case of the Purchaser that the Vendor had agreed to clear the mortgage over the property before executing the sale deed after the receipt of the advance amount. As a matter of fact, the Purchaser in his evidence also states as follows:- 7.5. Thus, even as per the case of the Purchaser, it can be seen that when Ex.A-1 was written and executed, the sale transaction was not complete. Strangely, without entering into a sale agreement, just because the Purchaser was a stamp Vendor, he has ventured to write the same as 'sale deed', when at the time of the alleged execution of the sale deed there were further obligations on the part of the Vendor and the Purchaser. The Vendor (i) had to clear the mortgages and redeem the property; (ii) Original documents had to be obtained and thereafter it has to be handed over; (iii) Vacate the suit property and hand over the same to the Purchaser. The Purchaser had to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. Transaction-wise, (i) the various amounts in the sale deed were not filled up and were tentatively written in pencil; (ii) The extent and other particulars of the property were not filled up and were tentatively written in pencil; and (iii) the document as such was very much inchoate. Therefore, under the said circumstances, going by the case of the Purchaser itself, it cannot be held that it is a completed case of sale transaction and the order of the Sub Registrar dated 23.11.1984 ordering compulsory registration of the sale deed as if the sale has completed is untenable. 7.6. At best, it can be seen that there was an agreement of sale between the parties and it was an on-going transaction. 7.6. At best, it can be seen that there was an agreement of sale between the parties and it was an on-going transaction. The transaction was not complete. It can also be seen that the Purchaser did not take any steps to send the balance sale consideration of Rs.17,000/- to the Vendor by purchasing any demand draft or by taking steps to deposit the same before the Registrar at the time of compulsory registration. Even when the suit was filed for recovery of possession, no steps have been taken to deposit the balance sale consideration. It was not even in the plaint prayer that he must be permitted to deposit the balance sale consideration and upon which, the Vendor should be directed to deliver the possession of the suit property. As a matter of fact, the Trial Court on its own, had directed in the judgment to deposit the balance sale consideration. Therefore, when the contract of sale was not complete, even by the ordering of compulsory registration of Ex.A-1 no title had actually passed on and thus, the Vendor will be entitled for the relief to declare that Ex.A-1 sale deed was inoperative and impracticable as prayed for in the suit. 7.7. This issue is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Janak Dulari Devi v. Kapildeo Rai, (2011) 6 SCC 555 in the context of non-payment of part sale consideration and in the context of a special practice in the state of Bihar, and it is necessary to extract the entire paragraphs 11 to 13 of the Judgment, which reads as under : “Re: Questions (ii) and (iii) 11. Where the intention of the parties is that passing of title would depend upon the passing of consideration, evidence is admissible for the purpose of contradicting the recital in the deed acknowledging the receipt of consideration. In Bishundeo Narain Rai v. Anmol Devi [ (1998) 7 SCC 498 ] this Court had occasion to consider the question as to when the ownership and title in a property will pass to the transferee, under a deed of conveyance. This Court observed: (SCC p. 503, para 11) “11. In Bishundeo Narain Rai v. Anmol Devi [ (1998) 7 SCC 498 ] this Court had occasion to consider the question as to when the ownership and title in a property will pass to the transferee, under a deed of conveyance. This Court observed: (SCC p. 503, para 11) “11. … Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act declares that on a transfer of property, all the interests which the transferor has or is having at that time, capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidence thereof, pass on such a transfer unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied. A combined reading of Section 8 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act suggests that though on execution and registration of a sale deed, the ownership and all interests in the property pass to the transferee, yet that would be on terms and conditions embodied in the deed indicating the intention of the parties. It follows that on execution and registration of a sale deed, the ownership title and all interests in the property pass to the purchaser unless a different intention is either expressed or necessarily implied which has to be proved by the party asserting that title has not passed on registration of the sale deed. Such intention can be gathered by intrinsic evidence, namely, from the averments in the sale deed itself or by other attending circumstances subject, of course, to the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872.” 12. In Kaliaperumal v. Rajagopal [ (2009) 4 SCC 193 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 101] this Court again considered the issue and held: (SCC pp. 197-98, paras 17-19 & 22) “17. It is now well settled that payment of entire price is not a condition precedent for completion of the sale by passing of title, as Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘the Act’, for short) defines ‘sale’ as ‘a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised’. If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. If the intention of parties was that title should pass on execution and registration, title would pass to the purchaser even if the sale price or part thereof is not paid. In the event of non-payment of price (or balance price as the case may be) thereafter, the remedy of the vendor is only to sue for the balance price. He cannot avoid the sale. He is, however, entitled to a charge upon the property for the unpaid part of the sale price where the ownership of the property has passed to the buyer before payment of the entire price, under Section 55(4)(b) of the Act. 18. Normally, ownership and title to the property will pass to the purchaser on registration of the sale deed with effect from the date of execution of the sale deed. But this is not an invariable rule, as the true test of passing of property is the intention of parties. Though registration is prima facie proof of an intention to transfer the property, it is not proof of operative transfer if payment of consideration (price) is a condition precedent for passing of the property. 19. The answer to the question whether the parties intended that transfer of the ownership should be merely by execution and registration of the deed or whether they intended the transfer of the property to take place, only after receipt of the entire consideration, would depend on the intention of the parties. Such intention is primarily to be gathered and determined from the recitals of the sale deed. When the recitals are insufficient or ambiguous the surrounding circumstances and conduct of parties can be looked into for ascertaining the intention, subject to the limitations placed by Section 92 of the Evidence Act. *** 22. There is yet another circumstance to show that title was intended to pass only after payment of full price. Though the sale deed recites that the purchaser is entitled to hold, possess and enjoy the scheduled properties from the date of sale, neither the possession of the properties nor the title deeds were delivered to the purchaser either on the date of sale or thereafter. It is admitted that possession of the suit properties purported to have been sold under the sale deed was never delivered to the appellant and continued to be with the respondents. It is admitted that possession of the suit properties purported to have been sold under the sale deed was never delivered to the appellant and continued to be with the respondents. In fact, the appellant, therefore, sought a decree for possession of the suit properties from the respondents with mesne profits. If really the intention of the parties was that the title to the properties should pass to the appellant on execution of the deed and its registration, the possession of the suit properties would have been delivered to the appellant.” (emphasis in original) 13. Where the sale deed recites that on receipt of the total consideration by the vendor, the property was conveyed and possession was delivered, the clear intention is that title would pass and possession would be delivered only on payment of the entire sale consideration. Therefore, where the sale deed recited that on receipt of the entire consideration, the vendor was conveying the property, but the purchaser admits that he has not paid the entire consideration (or if the vendor proves that the entire sale consideration was not paid to him), title in the property would not pass to the purchaser.” (emphasis supplied) 7.8. From the above, it will be clear that normally, title will pass on inspite of there being a balance in sale consideration and the Vendor can only sue for the balance amount. But from the recitals and if necessary, from the attendant circumstances, the Court can gather whether at the time of execution of the deed, the intention of the parties was that the transaction is complete and that the title is passed on. Apart from the sale consideration, the other factors are also pointed out in paragraph 7.5 supra. Thus, I am of the view that no title actually passed on to the Purchaser by virtue of Ex.B-1 and it is an attempt to avoid a separate agreement of sale being written and when the Vendor did not further co-operate or come forward to register, since the sale was not complete, the course open for the Purchaser is to enforce the sale by a suit and again a short cut by way of filing a application for compulsory registration has been resorted to. The Registrar erred grossly in ordering registration of the same, unmindful of the conduct of the parties. 7.9. The Registrar erred grossly in ordering registration of the same, unmindful of the conduct of the parties. 7.9. In this case, the Vendor had not come forward for presentation of the sale deed and admitted the execution thereof. Therefore, the same is presented before the Sub-Registrar, Kannamangalam, having powers of the District Registrar with an application under Section 35 for issuing summons and ordering registration thereof. An inquiry was conducted and in the inquiry even though the signature in the sale deed is admitted, the Vendor pleaded signature being obtained without filling up of particulars and pleaded fraud and thus, effectively denied 'execution'. In such a case, the Sub-Registrar, ought to have refused the registration thereof under Section 35 (2)(a) of the Act. However, an order dated 23.11.1984 is passed ordering registration thereof after conducting an inquiry under Section-74 of the Act. The entire law on the subject is analysed and explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Veena Singh(Dead) through Legal Representative -Vs- District Registrar/Additional Collector & Anr., (2022) 7 SCC 1 , in which it is categorically laid down that 'signing' and 'executing' do not mean the same. 'Execution' shall mean understanding the contents thereof and admitting signing of the document after knowing the contents. When fraud or misrepresentation is alleged, it cannot be held that execution is admitted and in such a situation, the parties have to relegated only to the Civil Suit. After dealing with the entire law on subject, the findings in paragraphs 63 and 83 read as follows: “63. In [Sayyapparaju Surayya v. Koduri Kondamma, 1949 SCC OnLine Mad 227], a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, while construing the provisions of Sections 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Registration Act, observed : (SCC OnLine Mad) “The admission required therefore is admission of the execution of the document. … It is not enough for the person, who is the ostensible executant, to admit his signature on a paper on which, it may be, the document is ultimately engrossed. The identity of the papers on which the signature occurs is not sufficient. … It is not enough for the person, who is the ostensible executant, to admit his signature on a paper on which, it may be, the document is ultimately engrossed. The identity of the papers on which the signature occurs is not sufficient. If a man says that he signed a blank paper on the representation that it was required for presenting a petition, as in the present case or if a man signs a completed document on the representation that his signature or thumb impression is required as an attesting witness, that admission of the signature or thumb impression in those circumstances cannot be construed to be an admission of the execution of the document. Far from its being an admission, it is a clear and unambiguous denial of the execution of the document. He must admit, in order to attract the provisions of Section 35(1) that he signed the document… The admission of execution therefore must amount to an admission that the person admitting entered into an obligation under the instrument; in other words, that he had executed the document, signed it as a sale deed, mortgage deed, or a lease deed, as the case may be.” .... 83. Therefore, in a situation where an individual admits their signature on a document but denies its execution, the Sub- Registrar is bound to refuse registration in accordance with Sections 35(3)(a) of the Registration Act. Subsequently, if an application if filed under Section 73, the Registrar is entrusted with the power of conducting an enquiry of a quasi-judicial nature under Section 74. If the Registrar passes an order refusing registration under Section 76, the party presenting the document for registration has the remedy of filing a civil suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, where a competent civil court will be able to adjudicate upon the question of fact conclusively.” Thus, when the Vendor had pleaded that the sale consideration and advance amount were not written, particulars were not filled up, when further balance consideration was not paid, there was no reason by which the action of the Vendor could have been regarded as 'admission of execution' so as to order compulsory registration of the same. 7.10. There is also yet another reason to hold the order of the Registrar as illegal. “Section 20 in Registration Act, 1908. 7.10. There is also yet another reason to hold the order of the Registrar as illegal. “Section 20 in Registration Act, 1908. Documents containing interlineations, blanks, erasures or alterations.—(l) The registering officer may in his discretion refuse to accept for registration any document in which any interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration appears, unless the persons executing the document attest with their signatures or initials such interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration. (2) If the registering officer registers any such document, he shall, at the time of registering the same, make a note in the register of such interlineation, blank, erasure or alteration.” 7.11. In this case as observed supra, there are number of interlineations and additions throughout the document. No signature of the Vendor attesting such interpolations is found in Ex.A-1. No reasons whatsoever is recorded by the Registrar in the Order in Ex.B-5, allowing compulsory registration of the same as to why he is allowing registration of the document inspite of the absence of signature. Thus, the entire exercise on the part of the Registrar is grossly without application of mind. Accordingly, I answer the point (i) that the the Purchaser was not entitled to compulsory registration of Ex.A-1 and consequently will not be entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property on the basis of Ex. A-1. I. On Point No. (ii): 7.12. Now, considering the case of the Vendor, it is her case that the sale consideration was Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance. Only for evading stamp duty, the parties agreed to declare the sale consideration as Rs. 20,000/- and only for the said purpose the figures were written in pencil. Even as per this version, it is clear that both parties indulged in a transaction so as to evade stamp duty. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kumar cited supra, that would amount to tax fraud. Therefore, the case of the Vendor is that she was also in pari delicto as far as the first fraud is concerned. But, taking advantage of the same, the Purchaser had committed further fraud on her by correcting the sale deed to his convenience. Therefore, the case of the Vendor is that she was also in pari delicto as far as the first fraud is concerned. But, taking advantage of the same, the Purchaser had committed further fraud on her by correcting the sale deed to his convenience. The Vendor being a party to part the fraud, cannot be heard to complain that remedy should be granted to her with respect to the remaining part of the fraud which was committed on her. This Court in Monicca Shantha Nelson & others -Vs- Rajalakshmi Venugopal & others, ( 2022 1 LW 716 ), has clearly held that the Court would not aid such delinquent parties and it is useful to extract paragraph 31 of the said Judgment which reads as under : “31....We could see the real purpose of the second agreement being evasion of (a) Service tax due to the Government on the whole sum received towards taken of the flat (b) Cash component being hidden to evade income tax. In such cases, the Courts have evolved the doctrine of pari delicto principle, which means that the Courts will not will not grant relief based on such agreement with an illegal purpose at the instance of a person who himself is a party to the illegality or fraud. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in Mohd. Salimuddin Vs Misri Lal and another ( 1986 2 SCC 378 ) held that : “The doctrine of pari-delicto is not designed to reward the 'wrong-doer', or to penalize the 'wronged', by denying to the victim of exploitation access to justice. The doctrine is attracted only when none of the parties is a victim of such exploitation and both parties have voluntarily and by their free will joined hands to flout the law for their mutual gain. Such being the position the said doctrine embodying the rule that a party to a transaction prohibited by law cannot enforce his claim in a Court of law” The illegal contract benefits the plaintiffs who are participi criminis in the transaction. Further, the more comprehensive rule of law, ex turpi causa non oritur actio on account of which no court will allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract, or transaction which is illegal” 7.13. Further, the more comprehensive rule of law, ex turpi causa non oritur actio on account of which no court will allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract, or transaction which is illegal” 7.13. Further, as pointed out by the Trial Court, even though it is the consistent case of the Vendor that only a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid as advance, in the cross examination she has also admitted that she received Rs. 30,000/-. Her conduct in not returning the advance of Rs.10,000/- and not taking any steps and keeping quiet till the receipt of legal notice also does not help her case. Therefore, I answer the question that Vendor has not established that Purchaser has played any fraud in the execution of Ex.A-1 or subsequently. J. On Point No. (iii): 7.14. The case of the Purchaser that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid on the date of entering into Ex.A1 is found to be correct. Now, almost 40 years have gone by from 19.05.1983 (39 years 7 months to be more specific) and the original Purchaser and the Vendor have since died and even some of the legal heirs, who were impleaded also passed away and their legal heirs are on record. The property continues to be in the hands of the Vendor and her legal heirs. This Court can mould the relief and grant the same to the parties so long as the same is within the scope of the suit and the issues that are agitated in the suit, without driving them for a fresh suit for such lesser/alternative reliefs. Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly enables the Court do so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has in Sopanrao & Anr -Vs- Syed Mehmood & others, (2019 7 SCC 96) held that the Civil Court can appropriately mould the relief and grant lesser relief to the parties even if it is not specifically prayed for. Useful reference can also be made to para 67 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court of India in J.P.Buildings -Vs- A. Ramdass Rao, ( 2011 1 SCC 429 ) where it has been held, to be the duty of the Court to mould the relief and grant the same to render substantial justice between the parties. Useful reference can also be made to para 67 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court of India in J.P.Buildings -Vs- A. Ramdass Rao, ( 2011 1 SCC 429 ) where it has been held, to be the duty of the Court to mould the relief and grant the same to render substantial justice between the parties. Therefore, considering the over all facts and circumstance of the case, the reliefs have to be moulded in accordance to the above findings of this Court. Therefore, in view of my above findings, the legal heirs of the Vendors, the appellants herein, will be entitled for the property, as they are in physical possession of the property and in possession of the parent and title deeds of the property. The compulsory registration of Ex.A-1, sale deed is declared as illegal and as such, the title would vest with the appellants. The Purchaser will be entitled to a sum of Rs. 30,000/- being the advance amount had to the Vendor and the cost of the stamp paper, being Rs. 2,400/-, with further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.05.1983 till the date of payment. There shall be a charge on the suit property for the due re-payment of the above sum. Accordingly, the parties will be entitled for the reliefs. K. The Result : 8. The Appeal Suit No. 185 of 1989 is allowed in part: (i) That O.S. No. 20 of 1986 on the file the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Arani is decreed on the following terms : (a) That the plaintiff is entitled for a declaration that Ex.A-1 Sale Deed is inoperative and no title had passed on to the defendant by the same; (b) Consequently the defendant or any person claiming through him shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. (ii) That O.S. No. 27 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arani is decreed on the following terms : (a) That the suit be dismissed in respect of the relief of recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant; (b) Alternatively, the defendants or any person claiming through them shall pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 32,400/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19/05/1983 till date of realisation; (c) That there shall be charge on the suit property for the due realisation of the above sum. (iii) That the first suit in this case was instituted on 19.05.1983. Already 39 years and 7 months have passed. Therefore, any further proceedings, arising out this Judgment shall be treated as emergent. (iv) That the parties shall bear their respective costs throughout.