A document compulsorily registered under Section 75(3) of the Registration Act shall operate from the date of its execution, and not from the date of presentation for registration.

N.P.SINGH, J.

1. Whether a document compulsorily registered takes effect from the date of execution or from the date of presentation for registration is the substantial question of law raised in this second appeal.

2. Defendant No. 1 is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit in question had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration of his title and recovery of possession over 10 dhurs of land of holding No. 99 situate at Mohalla Saraiyaganj in the town of Muzaffarpur. According to the plaintiff, the holding aforesaid has an area of 1 katha and originally belonged to Sitaram Sah (defendant No. 5). On 31-12- 1951, Sitaram Sah executed a sale deed in favour of one Jamuna Sah, husband of Most. Sundri Devi (defendant No. 6) in respect of 10 dhurs of land of the aforesaid holding. On 9-11-1959, Jamuna Sah executed a sale deed in respect of aforesaid 10 dhurs of land in favour of Ram Bilash Ojha (defendant No. 2). Before the sale deed could be presented for registration, Jamuna Sah executed another sale-deed on 11-11-1959 in respect of the same 10 dhurs of land in favour of Jamuna Prasad (defendant No. 1), the appellant. On 7-3-1960, Ram Bilash Ojha presented the deed executed in his favour on 9-11-1959 by Jamuna Sah for compulsory registration. After following the procedure for compulsory registration the sale deed dated 9-11-1959 was registered. On 12-6-1962, Ram Bilash Ojha transferred the same 10 dhurs of land which is the subject matter of controversy in favour of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed.

3. According to the plaintiff, Jamuna Sah having executed a sale deed on 9-11-1959 in favour of Ram Bilash Ojha aforesaid, who, in his turn, transferred the land to the plaintiff, defendant-appellant did not acquire any title on the basis of the sale deed dated 11-11-1959 executed in his favour of the same Jamuna Sah.

4. The claim of the plaintiff over the disputed land was resisted by the defendant-appellant. According to the defendant-appellant, the Sale deed dated 9-11-1959 executed by Jamuna Sah in favour of Ram Bilash Ojha (defendant No. 2) was a forged, fabricated and ante-dated document and as such the vendor of the plaintiff neither acquired any title nor possession over the land in question. The defendant-appellant claimed title and possession over the suit land on the basis of the sale deed dated 11-11-1959 executed in his favour by Jamuna Sah.

5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the sale deed dated 9-11-1959 in favour of Ram Bilash Ojha was not a forged document, as such the plaintiff acquired right, and interest over the suit land, by virtue of sale deed dated 12 6-1962 having been executed in his favour by Ram Bilash Ojha. On the aforesaid finding, a decree for recovery of possession with mense profits was passed,. On appeal being filed by the defendant appellant, the court of appeal below affirmed the finding of the trial court and held that although the sale deed dated 9-11-1959 was registered after execution of sale deed by Jamuna Sah in favour of the defendant appellant but after registration it became operative, from the very date of execution, the sale deed in favour of defendant-appellant being later in point of time, the defendant-appellant acquired title to the land in dispute.

6. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that even if the finding of the Courts below that on 9-11-1959 Jamuna Sah did execute a sale deed in favour of Ram Bilash Ojha, the vendor of the plaintiff, is held to be correct still as the said sale deed was presented for registration on 7-3-1960 and was registered through the procedure of compulsory registration, in view of S.75(3) of the Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it became operative only with effect from the date of its presentation for registration, i.e. 7-3-1960. About the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant appellant it was submitted that although it was executed on 11-11-1959 but having been registere