transaction should have been effected only by way of a registered instrument as per Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiffs have not whispered about the unregistered sale deed dated 20.05.1947 in the plaint. As rightly held by the trial Court, on a perusal of Ex.A6, when it does not reveal the father name of the parties, the village name and also the description of the property conveyed under the said document and no one had attested the same and nothing has been whispered as to who had scribed the said document, all put together, when no one had been examined by the plaintiffs associated with Ex.A6 and as pointed out supra, when the sale transaction covered under Ex.A6 should be effected only by a registered instrument, thus it is found that the sale transaction said to have been effected by way of Ex.A6 deed cannot at all accepted in the eyes of law and therefore, as rightly held by the trial Court, by way of Ex.A3 unregistered instrument, the plaintiffs' father could not acquire a valid right qua the suit property as sought to be projected by them. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in holding that Ex.A6 is an invalid document and when the position being above, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that their father had acquired a valid title to the suit property and the alleged oral transaction by which their father is alleged to have purchased the suit property cannot be accepted as a valid transaction. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' father having not derived any valid title to the suit property, he would incompetent to execute any Will much less Ex.A2 in favour of his wife Bagyamma. Therefore, under Ex.A2 Will, as rightly contended by the defendants' counsel, no valid right would accrue to Bagyamma qua the suit property. The resultant position is that Bagyamma would also the incompetent to settle the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs under Ex.A1 deed. Therefore, when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that their mother Bagyamma or their father had acquired a valid title to the suit property, the documents marked as Exs.A1 & A2 would be of no use to sustain the plaintiffs' case. Equally, the registered sale deed dated 15.07.1906 marked as Ex.A3 would also not lend support to the plaintiffs case, particularly, though by way of Ex.A3 sale deed, we could gather that one Narauanavanam Kanniappa Mudali had purchased the suit property under Ex.A3 sale deed, when the plaintiffs have failed to establish the oral sale transaction in favour of their father as a true and valid transaction, Ex.A3 would be of no use to hold that Narauanavanam Kanniappa Mudali had validly transferred the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs' father.
