NABA KUMAR MONDAL & ANR Vs. CHHABI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd court, Suri, Birbhum in Title Appeal No. 51 of 2006 affirming the judgement and decree dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sadar Court, Suri, Birbhum in Title Suit No. 84 of 2002 at the instance of the defendants.

(2.) Let us now consider the merit of the appeal to find out as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for which the appeal is required to be admitted for hearing under the provision of Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure or not.

(3.) Parties are closely related to each other. The plaintiff is the maternal aunt of the defendants. Admittedly the husband of the plaintiff was the maternal uncle of the defendants and he was the owner of the suit property. He executed a deed of gift bequeathing the suit property in favour of his wife on 2nd May, 2000. Registration of the said deed of gift was completed on 29th April, 2002. Husband of the plaintiff also executed another deed of gift bequeathing the suit property in favour of his nephews (defendants/appellants) on 30th May, 2000. Registration of the said deed was completed on 22nd February, 2001. Parties are thus making rival claims of title over the suit property through those two deed of gifts. Section 47 of the Registration Act says that once a document, which is required to be registered compulsorily, is registered, the effect of such document relates back to the date of execution of the deed. If the principle underlying Section 47 of the Registration Act is applied in the present case, then we have no hesitation to hold that the deed of gift which was executed by the husband in favour of his wife on 2nd May, 2000 was earlier in point of time than the deed of gift which was executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of his nephews on 30th May, 2000. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the wife derived title in respect of the suit property from her husband by virtue of the deed of gift executed by him in her favour on 2nd May, 2000. We, thus, do not find any illegality in this part of the findings of the courts below.