In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013-SC- When a compulsorily registerable document is registered according to Registration Act, it can operate from a date before the date of its registration: Supreme Court
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Pankaj Mithal [02-01-2024] 

Read Order: KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS. vs. GEJO. (D) TH.LRS & ORS

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 3, 2024: The Supreme Court has ruled that section 47 of the Registration Act does not deal with the completion of sale and a registered sale deed, where entire consideration is paid, would operate from the date of its execution.

The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was considering a civil appeal preferred by the unsuccessful defendants challenging a judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The respondents were the legal representatives of Smt. Gejo, who was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration. She claimed a declaration of ownership over the land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas (suit property) based on the sale deed executed on 6^th June, 1975 and registered on 23^rd July,1975. The first defendant, Kanwar Raj Singh (predecessor of the present appellants), executed the sale deed. Subsequently, the first defendant executed a gift deed regarding a 2/3^rd share in respect of the same property in favour of the eighth defendant – Smt. Ravinder Kaur. The eighth defendant is the first defendant’s wife.

According to the original plaintiff – Smt. Gejo, before registration of the sale deed, an interpolation was made in the sale deed by the first defendant by adding that only 1/3rd share measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas was being sold. The suit was contested by the first defendant, contending that what was sold was the area of 23 kanals and 8 marlas, which was his 1/3rd share in the suit property.

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. The first and eighth defendants preferred an appeal before the District Court. The Additional District Judge allowed the said appeal and held that the correction made in the sale deed was bona fide and was not fraudulently made. The plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the High Court. The plaintiff died during the pendency of the second appeal. Respondent nos. 1(i) & 1(v) are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. By the impugned judgment, the appeal was allowed, and the decree of the Trial Court was restored.

Referring to Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer, the appellant’s Counsel 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 would prevail.

As the High Court had placed reliance upon 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 was required, the Top Court referring to the same provision said, “Thus, when a compulsorily registerable document is registered according to the Registration Act, it can operate from a date before the date of its registration. The date of the operation will depend on the nature of the transaction. If, in a given case, a sale deed is executed and the entire agreed consideration is paid on or before execution of the sale deed, after it is registered, it will operate from the date of its execution. The reason is that if its registration was not required, it would have operated from the date of its execution.”

It was opined by the Apex Court that every sale deed in respect of property worth more than Rs. 100 is compulsorily registerable under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, a sale deed executed by the vendor becomes an instrument of sale only after it is registered.

Further, referring to Ram Saran Lall (Supra), the Top Court observed that the decision of the Constitution Bench only dealt with the question of when the sale is complete and did not deal with the issue of the date from which the sale deed would operate. “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”, the Bench added.

The consideration, in the present matter, was entirely paid on the date of the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was registered with the interpolation made about the description/area of the property sold. The first defendant admittedly made the said interpolation after it was executed but before it was registered.

“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. Thus, the sale deed as originally executed will operate. The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored. Only if such changes would have been made with the consent of the original plaintiff, the same could relate back to the date of the execution”, the Bench held.

 Therefore, the Bench opined that in this case the sale deed as it existed when it was executed would operate. Finding no error in the view taken by the High Court and placing reliance upon Satyender and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors., the Bench held that the second appeal in the present case would be governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

Considering the fact that under clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 41, a decision being contrary to law is a ground for interference, the Bench held that the decision of the first Appellate Court was contrary to Section 47 of the Registration Act and the High Court was justified in interfering with the decision of the first Appellate Court in a second appeal under Section 41.

Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.