The main legal point established is that Section 47 of the Registration Act applies to a registrable document, such as a deed of gift, and the effect of such document relates back to the date of its execution upon registration.

JUDGMENT :

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.

1. This Civil Revisional application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 23rd June, 2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Ghatal, Paschim Midnapore in Title Suit No. 68 of 2021 dismissing the application of the petitioner-defendant no. 1 for rejection of plaint.

2. The brief fact in nutshell is that the opposite party no. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction being Title Suit No. 68 of 2021 against the petitioner-defendant no. 1 and proforma defendant no. 2-opposite party no. 2, contending inter-alia as follows:

(i) The husband of the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 Sri Mahadeb Parui (proforma defendant no. 2-opposite party no. 2) was the owner of the land, comprised within L.R Dag No. 81, Khatian No. 420, Mouza-Nuniagoda, Pargana-Chetuar, P.S. Daspur, Paschim Medinipur, measuring more or less 5.580 decimals, by way of purchase through two sale deeds executed on 11th April, 2008 and 3rd August, 2011 which was duly mutated in his name in the revenue records of the concerned District.

(ii) The proforma defendant no. 2-opposite party no. 2, gifted the aforesaid property more fully described in the ‘Ka’ schedule of the plaint to his wife, the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1, by way of a deed of gift executed on 12th June, 2019 and registered on 30th August, 2019. Since there was marital discord between the plaintiff and her husband, for future well-being of the plaintiff, with the intervention of relatives, proforma-defendant no. 2 (husband of the plaintiff) gifted the aforesaid property to the plaintiff.

(iii) The said property gifted to the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 was duly accepted by her. Though the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 had the absolute right, title, interest and possession of the ‘Ka’ schedule property but she could not get the said property mutated in her name for the reasons spelt out in the plaint.

(iv) In the meantime the plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 came to learn that her husband (proforma defendant No. 2-opposite party no. 2) has transferred the ‘Ka’ schedule property by way of two sale deeds (Ka/1 schedule) in favour of the petitioner-defendant No. 1 on 28th June, 2019 and 9th July, 2019 respectively.

(v) The plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 in the suit challenged the aforesaid two deeds to be fraudulent, void, illegal, inoperative, not binding and devoid of consideration amount.

3. The petitioner-defendant no. 1 in the aforesaid suit filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground that prior to registration of the deed of gift in favour of the plaintiff on 30th August, 2019, the proforma defendant no. 2 already transferred by way of two sale deeds executed and registered on 28th June, 2019 and 9th July, 2019 respectively, the entire 16 annas share in ‘Ka’ schedule property in favour of petitioner-defendant no. 1 upon payment of full consideration amount. Thus the proforma defendant no. 2 did not have the right, title and interest over the property to make further gift of such property subsequently in favour of the plaintiff, his wife. The plaintiff cannot claim her right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of an illegal deed which was registered two months later. Further mutation of the property in question in the revenue records has also been done in favour of petitioner-defendant no. 1. On such count, the petitioner-defendant no. 1 prayed for rejection of the plaint for want of distinct cause of action.

4. Upon hearing the learned advocates for respective parties and considering the materials placed before it, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant no. 1 for rejection of plaint.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the learned Trial Court, defendant no. 1 has filed the present revisional application.

6. Mr. Sakya Sen, lear