A
B
c
D
E
F
GURBAX SINGH
v.
KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 11, 2002
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND
BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.]
Registration Act, I 908
S.47-Sale deeds-Commencement of operation-Two sale deeds (Ext.
P-2 and Ext. D-1) executed the same day-Time of execution of P-2 shown as
10.00 A.M-Time of execution of D-1 not shown-Concurrent findings of
courts below that Ext. P-2 executed earlier than Ext. D-2 and former prevails
over latter-Held, 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, time of their execution would
determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration-The one
which is executed earlier would prevail over the other executed subsequently-
In view of concurrent findings of courts below, High Court rightly held that
Ext. P-2 prevails over Ext.-D-1-There is no illegality in the order of High
Court warranting interference under Article I 36 of the Constitution-Deeds
and Documents-Commencements of operation-Constitution of India-Article
136.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 1969 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2001 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 4050 of 1999.
Vipin Gogia and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia for the Petitioner.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. .
Jamail Singh, respondent No. 2 executed two documents of sale (Exs. ·
P-2 and D-1) on November 25, 199 I. Having regard to the findings of the
H Courts below that Ex. P-2 was executed earlier than Ex.D.1-land having
940
..
..-
~
•
•
-
GURBAX SINGH v. KART AR SINGH
941
noted Ex. P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. A
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.
In view of the provisions of Section 4 7 of the Registration Act, 1908
B
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 C
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.
D ..
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
R.P.
Petition dismissed.
Lex