FAIJAHI DEVI Vs. SREE SURENDRA SIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decree of the Assistant District Judge (2) Cachar passed in Title Appeal No. 133 of 1982 partly allowing the appeal from the decree passed by the Munsiff (1) Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 75 of 1979.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are thus. One K was owner of the land measuring 11 B 7 K 6 Ch in area covered by Second RS Patta No. 118 and 121. After the death of K, his widow M and his daughter A inherited the land. B is husband of A. I is the adopted son of R and A, and the plaintiff F is the wife of I. During her lifetime, M gifted 4 B 17 K of land to B under a. registered deed dated 15-5-49 (Ext.-4). Out of 4 B 17 K of land, B sold 2 B 8 K 8 Ch of land to the plaintiff F under a registered deed dated 18-4-77 (Ext.-1). On the death of M, her daughter A inherited whatever M left in her share. After various transactions, at the relevant time F was the owner of 1 B 4 K. 4 Ch of land, and I was the owner of 8 B 18 K 14 Ch of land out of 11 B 17 K 6 Ch of land left by K. Out of his land, I sold 8 B 10 K of land to plaintiff F under the deed (Ext.-2) executed on 13-9-78 but registered on 22-11-78. I again sold 4 B 17 K of land, out of the land sold to F to A under deed (Ext.-D) executed on 19-9-78 and registered on the same day, viz., 19-9-78. Thereafter, A, who is defendant-20, sold 3 B 12 K 12 Ch of land to defendants-1 and l0 under three different registered sale deeds. The plaintiff claims 9 B 14 K 4 Ch of land. But, out of 9 B 14 K 4 Ch the dispute is in respect of 4 B 17 K of land which was purchased by A from I under Ext. -D. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal by the contesting defendants-1, 10 and 20, the lower appellate Court declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land excluding the land covered by deed Ext.-D modifying the decree by holding that Ext.-D was registered earlier in point of time.

(3.) Mr. B. L. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that by virtue of Section 47 of the Registration Act when the sale deed Ext.-2 was registered it commenced to operate from 13-9-78, the date of execu-tion, although it was registered on 22-11-78, and therefore, Ext.-2 would prevail over Ext.-D which was executed on 19-9-78. Mr. B. K. Acharyya, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the registra-tion of sale under Ext.-2 was completed on 22-11-78 under Section 61 of the Act, but before the completion of registration of sale, I executed the deed of sale (Ext.-D) on 19-9-78 and registered on 19-9-78, and as such, the sale of the land under Ext.-D shall not be affected by Ext.-2.