Gejo, before registration of the sale deed, an interpolation was made in the sale deed by the first defendant by adding that only 1/3 share measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas was being sold.
The Trial Court decreed the suit and held that what was sold to the original plaintiff was the entire land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas.
Domini Kuer and submitted that in view of the said decision, the sale would be completed when the sale deed was registered and, therefore, the description of the property recorded in the registered sale deed will prevail.
The first Appellate Court recorded that it is the case of the defendants that before registration of the sale deed, the first defendant incorporated a change in the sale deed stating that it was in respect of 1/3 share in the area of 71 kanals and 8 marlas. Time from which registered document operates.—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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/extension-of-benefit-of-doubt-in-criminal-convictions/
We will assume that the learned Attorney-General’s construction of the instrument of sale that the property was intended to pass under it on the date of the instrument is correct. The Constitution Bench held that Section 47 applies to a document only after it has been registered, and it has nothing to do with the completion of the sale when the instrument is one of sale.
In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Section 47 of the Registration Act does not deal with the completion of the sale; it only lays down the time from which a registered document would operate. In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/vicarious-liability-under-section-34-of-ipc/
The High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the first Appellate Court in a second appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act.
Case Title: KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH:LRS . Vs. GEJO (D) TH:LRS . (2024 INSC 1)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009098-009098 / 2013
