The timing of registration and the effect of attachment on prior rights were central to the court's decision.

Ramaswami, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a deoiaion of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur dismissing his suit.

2. The plaintiff alleged that in 1941 he bad instituted a money suit against the defendant 2nd party for recovery of Rs. 642 and odd due under a handnote. He obtained a decree, in execution of which ha purchased 4 bighas 1 katha 12 dhura of land. The purchase was on 11th May 1943 and shortly after the plaintiff obtained dakhaldehani. It is stated that on 3rd May 1941, defendant 2nd party executed a kebala with respect to the land in suit in favour of the defendants 1st party, but the kebala was registered only on 6th May 1942, after certain contested proceedings before the Registration Officer. It is the admitted case that on 7th June 1941, the plaintiff had prayed in the money suit for attachment of the disputed land. The Court accepted the petition and on 30th June 1941, passed an order of attachment. After dakhaldehani had taken place, the defendants 1st party filed an objection under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C., which was allowed by the executing Court. The plaintiff thereafter instituted the present suit under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 103, Civil P. C.

3. The main question debated before the lower Court, was whether the kebala executed by defendant 2nd party in favour of the defendants 1st party was a farzi and fraudulent document.

4. Upon this issue of fact the lower Courts have after examining the evidence, reached the definite conclusion that the kebala was genuine and for consideration and was not ante-dated.

5. In support of the appeal Mr. S.C. Mukharji, nevertheless pressed the argument that the kebala, executed in favour of the respondents could not prevail over the order of attachment since it was registered long after the order of attachment was made by the Court. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Sec. 64, Civil P. C., which is to the following effect:

"Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached . . . shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment."

But it is necessary to read Order 38, Rule 10 which enacts that

"attachment before judgment shall not effect the rights, existing prior to the attachment, of persons not parties to the suit, nor bar any person holding a decree against the defendant from applying for the Bale of the property under attachment in execution of such decree".

6. Upon the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the plaintiff cannot succeed for the attachment cannot prevail against a sale deed which was executed before the order of attachment was made.

7. In Kalyanasundaram Pillai V/s. Karuppa Mooppanar, 8 P. L. T. 327 : (A. I. R. (14) 1927 P. C. 42) a Hindu male had executed a deed of gift in respect of part of immovable property and delivered it to the donee; a day after he adopted a son, and five days later the deed of gift was registered. The question arose as to whether the deed of gift took effect from the date of execution or from the date of registration. The Judicial Committee affirmatively laid down that the deed became effective from the date when it was executed and the gift accepted by the donee. Lord Salvesen remarked in the course of his judgment:

"Their Lordships are unable to see how the provision of Sec.123, T. P. Act, can be reconciled with Sec. 47, Registration Act, except upon the view that, while registration is a necessary solemnity in order to the enforcement of a gift of immoveable property, it does not suspend the gift until registration actually takes place. When the instrument of gift has been handed by the donor to the donee and accepted by him, the former has done every thing in his power to complete the donation and to make it effective. Registration does not depend upon his consent, but is the act of an officer appointed by law for the purpose, who, if the deed is executed by or on behalf of the donor and is attested by at lea