The main legal point established is that the sale deed registered first takes precedence over the one registered later, as per S. 54 and S. 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the registered document operates from the time of its execution, as per S. 47 of the Registration Act.

Heard Mr. B.B. Deb, learned senior Advocate for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.N. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents.

2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a Title Suit No. 12 of 1984 praying for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession of the suit land described in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit land from defendant No. 1 for consideration by a registered deed of sale 7-7-1983 and he was put into possession. But on 11-7-1983, i.e., after four days only he was dispossessed and the defendant No. 3 is possessing the same. The suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendant No. 1. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate written statements contesting the claim of the plaintiff.

3. The case of the defendant No. 2 is that he purchased the suit land from defendant No. 1 and the sale deed was executed on 14-6-1983 and registered on 11-7-1983 and he is in the possession of the suit land. The defendant No. 3, on the other hand, claimed that the suit land was in possession of one Monoranjan Dhar and thereafter he possessed the same. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground of title and the appeal preferred by the present appellant being Title Appeal No. 23/89 was also dismissed.

4. In this second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed :-

1. Whether the trial court did not frame proper issue in respect of question of adverse possession; and

2. Whether the Courts below committed error in interpreting the two sale deeds relating to the disputed land.

5. As regards the first question, it is seen that the Trial Court came to specific finding that the present appellant / defendant No.3 was in permissive possession and the suit land stood in the name of the defendant No. 1 till transfers by way of sale deed. At no point of time the present appellant claimed the suit land as his own. Although no issue was framed regarding adverse possession, the Trial Court on the basis of evidence on record held that this is not a case of adverse possession. In the memo of appeal filed by the present appellant before the first Appellate Court, he did not raise this plea of non-framing of issues regarding the adverse possession. As a matter of facts, the plea of adverse possession or non-framing of issues on that ground was never raised before the first Appellate Court. In view of the admitted position of the case and the matter available, I find no force so far the first question of law is concerned.

6. The Trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff regarding possession over the suit land and his alleged dispossession. The suit was, however, decreed on the basis of the title of the plaintiff. In this case the admitted position is that the suit land belonged to defendant No. 1 and both the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 claimed to have purchased the suit land from defendant No. 1. Thus there are two sale deeds. Exhibit-4 is the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on 7-7-1983 and it was registered on that date itself, i.e., on 7-7-1983. Exhibit-6 is the certified copy of the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 and it was executed on 14-6-1983 and was registered on 11-7-1983. The plaintiff claims that there was an agreement for sale on 20-9-1982, but as it was a unregistered document, the same was not considered by the Court below and the title was not decided on the basis of the said document. The learned Trial Court relying on S. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act held that Transfer for ownership of immovable property of the value of rupees one hundred and upwards takes effect from the time of registration of the instrument. Hence, relying on S. 48 of the Transfer of Property Act and in view of the fact that Exhibit-4 was registered on 7-7-1983 and Exhibit-6 though executed on 14-6-1983 was registered on 11-7-1983 only, i.e., after Exhibit-4 and as such Exhibit-4 will prevail over Exhibit-6 and the title of the suit