SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(Mad) 169

MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAMASWAMI
Ramaswami Pillai
Versus
Ramasami Naicker and others
Second Appeal No. 691 of 1959
Decided On : 9 September, 1959

Advocates Appeared:
G. Ramanujam, for Appellant.

A registered document operates from the time of its execution, not from the date of its registration.

Headnote:

REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 47 - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 48 - PRIORITY OF REGISTERED DOCUMENTS - SALE DEEDS - EXECUTION AND REGISTRATION - EFFECT OF DELAY IN REGISTRATION - RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES.

Fact of the Case:

Two sale deeds were executed for the same property, one in favor of the first defendant and the other in favor of the third defendant. The sale deed in favor of the first defendant was executed earlier but was registered later than the sale deed in favor of the third defendant. The issue was which sale deed should prevail.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the sale deed in favor of the first defendant should prevail because it was executed earlier, even though it was registered later. The court relied on section 47 of the Registration Act and section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provide that a registered document operates from the time of its execution, not from the date of its registration.

Issues: Whether the sale deed in favor of the first defendant should prevail over the sale deed in favor of the third defendant, even though the latter was registered earlier.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale deed in favor of the first defendant should prevail because it was executed earlier, even though it was registered later. The court relied on section 47 of the Registration Act and section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, which provide that a registered document operates from the time of its execution, not from the date of its registration.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal.

Judgement

JUDGMENT : This second appeal is sought to be preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramnathapuram at Madurai in A. S. No. 104 of 1955 confirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Satur in O. S. No. 272 of 1950.

2. The facts are short. The suit property belonged to the joint family of the second defendant and his son Kanga Arumugham Pillai. Sale deeds were got executed from the wastrel son Arumugham in favour of defendants 1 and 3 during the lifetime of the father falsely stating in the documents that the father is insane. It has been held that the sale deed executed by the father in favour of the Plaintiff is valid and therefore the half share of the father goes out of the picture. In regard to the rival sale deeds executed by the son in favour of defendants 1 and 3, the first defendant purchased the suit property under Ex. B-4 dated 17-6-1950, which was registered on 26th June 1950. D. Ws. 2, 3 and 7 spoke to the execution and passing of consideration thereunder. The sale deed in favour of the third defendant by the son under Ex. B-15 is dated 14-6-1950 and it was registered compulsorily on 12-10-1950. The contention of the first defendant was that Ex. B-15 was ante-dated and brought into existence subsequent to Ex. B-4. This contention on acceptable and relevant evidence has been upheld by both the Courts below. The learned District Munsif held that inasmuch as the sale deed in favour of the first defendant was executed anterior in point of time and in point of registration, that sale should prevail in so far as the sons share is concerned against the sale in favour of the third defendant. The learned subordinate Judge on appeal upheld this contention after examining two other alternatives viz., that the sale deed in favour of the first defendant was executed anterior in point of time to that of the third defendant and secondly, on the assumption that the sale in favour of the third defendant was anterior in point of time, and came to the conclusion, as the learned District Munsif, viz., that the first defendants sale will prevail and dismissed the appeal.

3. The sections of law bearing upon this point are section 47 of the Indian Registration Act and section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act. The scope of section 47 of the Registration Act has been succinctly set out in the AIR Commentaries on the Indian Registration Act, Second Edition, at pages 350 and 352 and supplement thereto brought up to 30-6-1957 Page 23 and on the Transfer of Property Act, Third Edition, page 655 and supplement thereto brought up to 30-6-1957 page 37 as follows:

"Prior to the Act of 1864, the rule adopted by the various regulations and Acts was that documents operated from the date of their registration, and preference was given according to priority of registration. Under the Acts of 1864 and the subsequent Acts, a registered document operated not from the date of the registration but from the date from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made. The same rule is enacted in this section (47). Stating the rule in another way, the title of a person under a registered document may be said to relate back to the time from which it would have operated if no registration thereof had been required or made. Ordinarily, the time from which a document not required to be registered would operate would be the date of execution thereof. Thus, although a document, so long as it remains unregistered may not be valid, yet as soon as it has been registered it takes effect from the date of its execution. The transaction is thereby given a retrospective effect. In U. On Maung v. Maung Shwe Hpaung, AIR 1937 Rang 446 Roberts, C. J. observed as follows:

"The requirement of registration of a document is, in my opinion, an evidentiary requirement; an unregistered transfer is inchoate and is ineffective until registered. But it nevertheless exists and wh












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top