14.The learned Sub Judge, further observed that since the first and second defendants did not come forward to register the sale deeds, the plaintiff petitioned the Sub-Registrar, Panruti, to compulsorily register the documents. The first and second defendants gave statements before the Sub-Registrar, Panruti, on 09.10.1985 which statements have been marked as Exs.A5 and A6. Manikannu Chettiyar had also given a statement which was marked as Ex.A9. Veerappadoss had also given a statement which was marked as Ex.A35. The learned Sub Judge, rejected the contention of the defendants that the Sub-Registrar had not made proper enquiry before compulsorily registering the documents. It was also seen that the summons produced by the defendants in Ex.148 and Ex.149 were only xerox copies. They have not produced the originals. It was also seen that DW1, in her evidence tendered conflicting versions with respect to the statements before the Sub-Registrar and as a matter of fact, the learned Sub Judge had given a specific finding that the witness tendered false evidence. It was also seen that during evidence, DW1, stated that she had executed the documents without receiving any consideration and this statement was contrasted with Ex.B142, her advocate's notice, wherein receipt of bank draft for Rs.50,000/- on 01.08.1985 was confirmed. It was also seen in both the documents there are recitals to show that possession had been handed over to the purchaser.
