The title in the property passes to the vendees from the date of execution of the sale deed, not from the date of registration.

1. The facts giving rise to this second appeal are these. The property in dispute in some agricultural land, situate in village Bolewal, District Gurdaspur. It belonged to Lal Singh and his brother Sher Singh in equal shares. Lal Singh died and on his death, his share was inherited by his son Milka Singh. On 15th December, 1957, Sher Singh is alleged to have executed a will in favour of Kundan Singh son of Milkha Singh. On 16th October, 1958, Sher Singh died without leaving any child or a widow. His share in the property was mutated by the revenue authorities in favour of his sister Shrimati Ramo. On 23rd June, 1960, Kundan Singh minor, through his father Milkha Singh., and Milkha Singh on his own behalf as well, brought a suit, out of which the present second appeal has arisen, against Ramo, for declaration that they were the owners-in-possession of the land in question.

2. The suit was contested by Ramo, defendant No. 1, on a number of pleas, but in the present appeal, it is not necessary to mention them, because the case is being decided on a preliminary issue.

3. During the pendency of the suit, on 10th February, 1961, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, saying that they had compromised the matter with the defendant, Ramo, on 7th February, 1961. By the aid compromise, the suit had been adjusted, because Ramo had agreed that the same should be decreed. A prayer was, therefore, made that the compromise be recorded and the suit decided accordingly.

4. This application was opposed by Ramo. It may be stated that she did not deny her thumb-impression on the written compromise but pleaded that the compromise was vitiated by fraud and that she had no right to effect the same, because, on 7-2-1961, she did not possess any rights in the property, inasmuch as on 28th October, 1960, she had sold her share in favour of Sohan Singh and others for Rs. 15,250/-. After the said sale, therefore, she could not say that the suit be decreed.

5. It may be mentioned that after this defence was taken by Ramo, the plaintiffs impleaded her vendees as defendants Nos. 2 to 10 in the suit.

6. A preliminary issue was framed regarding this matter and it was "whether defendant No. 1 compromised the suit with the plaintiffs? If so, on what terms and with what effect?"

7. On merits also, the following issues were framed by the trial Judge:-

-

"1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in suit? 2. Whether is suit is maintainable in the present form? 3. Whether defendants Nos. 2 to 10 have purchased the land in suit from defendant No. 1? If so, when and with what effect?"

8. Evidence was led by the parties. It was somewhat surprising that instead of trying the issue regarding the compromise as a preliminary one, the whole case was decided. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the suit had not been compromised by Ramo and that she could not do so, because she had sold the property in dispute to defendants Nos. 2 to 10 on 28th October, 1960, and therefore, the compromise alleged to have been made by her on 7th February, 1961, was not legally effective. On merits, under Issue No. 1 it was held that Milkha Singh was the owner of half share in the land, except Khasra Nos. 193, 646 and 648 which were in possession of the tenants of the mortgagees, while Kundan Singh, minor plaintiffs No. 1, was neither owner of the other half share nor was he in possession of any portion of the land. Under issue No. 2, the finding was that the suit was maintainable in the present form. The finding under issue No. 3 was that defendants Nos. 2 to 10 had purchased the land in suit from Ramo, defendant No. 1, and they had a valid title thereto. On these findings the Trial Court passed a decree for a declaration that Milkha Singh, plaintiff No. 2, was the owner of only half share in the land, but he was in actual or constructive possession of the entire land in dispute, except Khasra Nos. 193, 646 an