Skip to content


Ram NaraIn Chaube and ors. Vs. Basdeo Misra and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All70
AppellantRam NaraIn Chaube and ors.
RespondentBasdeo Misra and ors.
Excerpt:
- - the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff is, therefore, perfectly valid......suit for recovery of possession by redemption. the defendants contested the validity of a deed of sale dated 29th december 1920 by one tirbhawan in favour of the plaintiff. this deed was not registered until 13th may 1921. in the interval, on 6th january 1921, tirbhawan executed and registered another sale-deed in favour of the defendants. the claim of the defendants is as expressed in the 4th ground of appeal, that the sale to the plaintiff was only complete on the date that the sale-deed was registered, that is 13th may 1921, and that prior to that date the sale to the defendants had been duly registered. this argument ignores the provisions of section 47 registration act, which states:a registered document shall operate from the time it would have commenced to operate if no.....
Judgment:

Bennet, J.

1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in a suit for recovery of possession by redemption. The defendants contested the validity of a deed of sale dated 29th December 1920 by one Tirbhawan in favour of the plaintiff. This deed was not registered until 13th May 1921. In the interval, on 6th January 1921, Tirbhawan executed and registered another sale-deed in favour of the defendants. The claim of the defendants is as expressed in the 4th ground of appeal, that the sale to the plaintiff was only complete on the date that the sale-deed was registered, that is 13th May 1921, and that prior to that date the sale to the defendants had been duly registered. This argument ignores the provisions of Section 47 Registration Act, which states:

A registered document shall operate from the time it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration.

2. Once the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff was registered on 13th May 1921 its operation dated back to 29th December 1920, and this date was prior to the sale-deed in favour of the defendants. The sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff is, therefore, perfectly valid. The learned Counsel for the defendants referred to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, which states that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immoveable property, unless it has been registered. That is correct, and until the 13th May 1921 the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff could not affect the property in question. But once registration was effected, on the 13th May 1921, Section 49 no longer applied and Section 47 began to apply, and the sale-deed began to operate from the 29th December 1920. The only case which has any bearing on the point cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants is Mathura Kalwar v. Ambika Dat A.I.R. 1914 All. 313, and in that case the decision was against the case for the appellants. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //