SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(SC) 207

Gurbax Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kartar Singh – Respondent


ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Jarnail Singh, respondent No. 2, executed two documents of sale (Exs. P-2 and D-1) on November 25, 1991. Having regard to the findings of the courts below that Ex.P-2 was executed earlier than Ex.D-1 land having noted that Ex.P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. and it was not shown when Ex.D-1 was executed in favour of the petitioner, the High Court, vide its order dated October 25, 2001, in RSA No. 4050 of 1999 confirmed the concurrent finding of the courts below holding that Ex.P-2 prevails over Ex.D-1 and thus dismissed the second appeal. It is against the said order that this Special Leave Petition is filed.

3. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is well-settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently. In view of the concur


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top