Back
2002(2) Supreme 59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, JJ.
Gurbax Singh -Petitioner
versus
Kartar Singh and Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1969 of 2002
Decided on 11-2-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Vipin Gogia and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advocates.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Jarnail Singh, respondent No. 2, executed two documents of sale (Exs. P-2 and D-1) on November 25, 1991. Having regard to the findings of the courts below that Ex.P-2 was executed earlier than Ex.D-1 land having noted that Ex.P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. and it was not shown when Ex.D-1 was executed in favour of the petitioner, the High Court, vide its order dated October 25, 2001, in RSA No. 4050 of 1999 confirmed the concurrent finding of the courts below holding that Ex.P-2 prevails over Ex.D-1 and thus dismissed the second appeal. It is against the said order that this Special Leave Petition is filed.
3. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is well-settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently. In view of the concurrent findings, referred to above, the High Court has rightly held that Ex.P-2 prevails over Ex.D-1. We find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
**************
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
