The main legal point established is that the rights created under a registered document prevail over oral agreements or declarations relating to the property, as per Section 48 of the Registration Act, 1908.

B.V. PINTO, J.—Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and in view of the fact that the appeal is four years old, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Ramdurg in R.A. No. 109/2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘LAC’] dismissing the appeal against the Judgment dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Ramdurg in O.S. No. 22/2006 [hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’] dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, in which the appellant had prayed for a declaration to declare that he had got priority right of purchase over the suit property when the defendants sell the said suit property. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 107/2B, measuring 3 acres, 31 guntas situated at Torangatti Village and another property in R.S. No. 107/2A, were only one land. The entire land was possessed by the plaintiff’s father and his brothers Gireppa and Patreppa. The said persons filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights over the above said entire land before the Land Tribunal, Ramdurg. The Land Tribunal, Ramdurg under its order No. LRM/Torangatti/SSR-1 granted the said land in the name of above said persons. Thereafter, the defendant preferred a writ petition, whereafter the matter was again remanded back for fresh disposal before the Land Tribunal, Ramdurg. During the pendency of the enquiry before the Land Tribunal, the parties compromised the matter and an area of 4 acres of land was given to the plaintiff’s family and the remaining land was given to defendant No. 1. At the time of compromise before the elders, it was agreed in between plaintiff’s father and his uncles that if the defendant wants to transfer the property, the priority should be given to the plaintiff’s family. It was orally agreed by the defendants to the said condition on the condition that they should be paid the prevailing rate at the time of sale.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he came to know that the suit property has been sold to some other persons without offering the same to him. Therefore, the plaintiff being the shareholder to the owner of the adjacent property, who has got an extent of 2 acres of land to himself and another 2 acre had fallen to the share of one Gireppa, he has no other land except the aforesaid 2 acres of land and that if the suit schedule property is sold to third persons, it will create problems and lead to unnecessary litigations. It is further averred in the suit that if the suit property is sold to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is ready to pay the amount as undertaken by him at the time of compromise and he is ready to purchase the property at the prevailing price. He is even prepared to buy the property at the rate fixed by this Court and hence, he has filed the suit.

5. Defendant No. 1 has contested the said suit, denying the allegations made in the plaint, while admitting the fact that the entire land was formerly owned by one family. However, he has denied the averment that father of the plaintiff and his brothers namely., Gireppa and Patreppa were in possession of the said land. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that the suit property bearing R.S. No. 107/2B is in the exclusive ownership of the defendant and formerly the entire land in R.S. No. 107/2, totally measuring 7 acres 32 guntas was in the possession of defendant’s family and further that the land was granted under the orders of the Land Tribunal, Ramdurg. However, he has denied the claim of the plaintiff regarding the oral agreement for sale of his part of the land namely., 4 acres of the land to the plaintiff.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has got priori