A sale deed, though unregistered at the time of execution, can prevail over an attachment effected later than the execution of the unregistered sale deed, as the transfer relates back to the execution when it is registered.

( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this second appeal is whether a sale deed executed in favour of the claimant before the attachment but registered later than the attachment can prevail.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the second appeal briefly are: The plaintiff is the appellant herein who obtained a decree on 22-2-1951 in O. S. No. 78 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsifs court, Masulipatam, on the foot of a promissory note executed on 10-12-1948 by the 2nd defendant in his favour and in Execution Petition No. 104 of 1951 the suit properties were attached on 30-3-1951. The 1st defendant claimed these properties by virtue of a sale deed executed by the second defendant in his favour on 24-1-1951 (Ex. B. 2), but it was registered on 2-4-1951 i. e. , on a date subsequent to the attachment. As the claim of the 1st defendant was allowed, the plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises. Both the lower courts held that the registration of Ex. B. 2 subsequent to the attachment does not affect the rights of the first defendant under the purchase, and the reason for this as stated by the lower courts is that the registration of the sale deed relates back to the date of execution.

( 3 ) MR. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that Exs. B. 3 to B. 6 which the first defendant relied upon to prove that there was consideration for the suit sale deed Ex. B-2. were not proved by calling in the persons who executed those vouchers. But they are admittedly in favour of the 1st defendant who examined himself as D. W. 1. These documents were spoken to by the 1st defendant though they are in true name of the 2nd defendant. The payments having been made from out of the sale consideration of Ex. B. 2, and the evidence of the 1st defendant who deposed as D. W. 1 having been believed by both the courts, it cannot, in the circumstances be said that the payments towards these debts of the second defendant have not been made out. The concurrent findings of the lower courts on this aspect of the case therefore, in my view, are unassailable,

( 4 ) ON the question whether Ex. B-2 which was unregistered till the dale of attachment is incapable of prevailing against the claims of the attaching creditor, Mr. Vidyasagar contended that inasmuch as any transfer ol interest in the alienated property would pass only on the registration of the sale deed, and as the transfer also should be taken to have effect only from the time of registration, the 1st defendant could not be considered as having any interest which would defeat the claims of the plaintiff when the attachment was made. For this Burpose the learned counsel relied upon the case of Iswarayya v. Subbanna, 67 Mad LJ 380 : (AIR 1934 Mad 637 (2) J decided by a Division bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Mr. Justice Madhavan Nair and Mr. Justice Bardswell. The point that arose for determination in that case was whether a creditor who petitioned to adjudicate a debtor was in time in filing his application. That application was filed within three months of the registration of the sale deed which is made the act of insolvency, but it is admittedly beyond three months from the date of execution, of the sale deed. On behalf of the appellant therein it was contended that though Section 47 of the Registration Act makes the effect of registration to begin from the date of execution, Section 34 of the Transfer of Property Act coupled with the other Provisions of the Registration Act are not calculated to give effect to any transfer of property over the value of Rs. 100. 00 unless the deed is registered and therefore the transfer for purposes of an act of insolvency should have taken place only on the registration of the document. This contention found favour with that Division Bench as they were in agreement with the decision in the case of Muthian Chettiar v. Official Receiver of Tinnevely, 64 Mad LJ 382 : (AIR 1933 Mad 185), which decided a simila