The court upheld the importance of timely registration and confirmed that the title conferred by a sale deed is effective from the date of execution, not registration.

1. Heard on the question of admission.

2. By this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to register the sale deed executed on 25.10.2011 (Annexure - P / 3) and after its registration, return the registered sale deed to the petitioner, within a specified time, as per the provisions of Indian Registration Act , 1908.

3. The facts of the case are that on 19.05.2011, respondent Nos.3 has executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one Roshan S/o Late Utsavchand Porwal (Annexure - P / 1) and also respondent Nos.4 & 5 have executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of one Roshan S/o Late Utsavchand Porwal (Annexure - P / 2).

4. On 25.10.2011, the vendors - respondent Nos.3 to 5 have executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner through Power of Attorney holder Roshan and these sale deeds have been executed before the respondent No.2 in presence of witnesses Ankur Mittal and Rajat S/o Bhagwati Prasad.

5. Later on, the Power of Attorney has been cancelled on 23.01.2012. The respondent No.2 did not register the sale deed and has put the remark upon the back of page No.5 of the sale deed that "unregistered G.P.A.". As per the sale deed, the same was presented on 24.10.2011. As per the note appended in the sale deed, it was not registered because General Power of Attorney has been cancelled on 23.01.2012.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that sale deed was executed on 25.10.2011 i.e., much prior to the date of cancellation / revocation of Power of Attorney dated 23.01.2012 and, therefore, respondent No.2 is bound to register the sale deed.

7. From the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is an admitted fact that on 25.10.2011, sale deed was executed for registration for a sum of Rs.5,000/- only and the total stamp duty comes to Rs.2,12,500/-. According to the petitioner, one Civil Suit No.36 - A / 2012 has been filed by Smt. Rachna Bai and Smt. Sangita Bai daughters of Badrilal in which the aforesaid sale deed has been sought to be declared as illegal and void. One Dinesh has also filed a Civil Suit No.250 - A / 2014 against respondent No.3 and others.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thakur Kishan Singh vs. Arvind Kumar reported in 1995 JLJ 192 (SC), Ghanshyamdas vs. Laxman Rao reported in 1981 WN 202 and Muralipa'hin vs. Dadu reported in 1981 WN 128 and submitted that the conferral of title through a sale deed is from the date when the sale deed is executed and not from the date when it is registered. This is the effect of true construction of S.47 of the Registration Act. He has further submitted that S.47 of the Act provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.

9. I am afraid how the aforesaid judgement would apply in the present facts and circumstances. In the present case, number of civil suits are pending between the parties and in the year 2011, the respondent No.2 failed to register the sale deed dated 25.10.2011. The present writ petition has been filed after a period of about 6 years. From the beginning, the petitioner was aware that the sale deed has not been registered by the Registrar but to get the period of limitation, only on 01.09.2017 filed an application before the respondent No.2 and on 08.09.2017, the respondent No.2 communicated the petitioner about non - registration of the documents.

10. From the aforesaid facts and circumst