1. This appeal has been very clearly and ably argued by Babu Atul Chandra Gupta, Vakil for the appellant, and we are quite satisfied that the learned Judge below was wrong in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
2. The defendant No. 1 in this case executed a kabala in favour of the plaintiff., on receipt of consideration. Thereafter he executed a second kabala in respect of the same property in favour of defendant No. 2 and had the latter document registered first and placed the second purchaser in possession. The learned Judge below has held that because the defendant No. 2 acquired the property without any notice of the previous title of the plaintiff., his title ought to prevail against the prior title of the plaintiff., which was registered later. This view is clearly in violation of Section 47 of the Registration Act, which 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.
3. As soon as the kabula of the plaintiff. was registered, it operated from the date of its execution, and, therefore, the title of the plaintiff. is prior notwithstanding the prior registration and delivery of possession to the defendant.
4. The learned Vakil for the respondent relied upon two cases in the Bombay High Court, namely Hasha v. Ragho Ambo Gondhali (4) and Santaya Mangarsaya v. Narayan 8 B. 182 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 485,.
5. These cases, however, are no longer law in the Presidency of Bombay, because we find from the cases of Narayan Venkap Shetii v. Laxuman Shantaya Kint (1) and Motichand Jivraj v. Sagun Jethiram (1) that a different view has been held in that Court in consequence of a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Kalidas Mullick v. Kanhaya Lal Pundit (5), which held that in order to complete title under the Hindu Law, delivery of possession was not a necessary ingredient.
6. The Same view with regard to priority of title between competing registered documents was held in this Court also in the case of Jadunandan Prosad Singha v. Koer Kallyan Singh (2). We, therefore, think that the learned Judge was clearly wrong in his enunciation of law in this case.
7. This appeal, therefore, is decreed with costs.