MATHURA KALWAR Vs. AMBIKA DAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN August 1900 Mata Badal, tenant of a fixed-rate holding mortgaged it to the appellant. On June 1st, 1909, Mata Badal sold all his rights in the holding to the plaintiffs-respondents. The sale-deed was presented for registration on June 18th, 1909, but owing to obstruction offered by the vendor the document was not registered till the following February. IN the meantime Mata Badal again sold his rights in the holding to the appellant by a deed of sale, dated the 11th of June 1909 and registered on the same date. This was a: suit for redemption of the mortgage and possession of the holding by the respondents. It was-resisted by the appellant on the strength of the document of June 11th, 1909, It has been found that the respondents are bona fide purchasers of the property and that the deed of sale in their favour was really executed on June 1st, 1909, and that the deed relied upon by the appellant did not come into existence till ten days later. Prima facie the later deed must give way to the earlier deed. On behalf of the appellant it was said that there is some evidence that a few days after the execution of the earlier deed the respondents received some kind of information that Mata Badal intended to execute a deed in favour of the appellant. Even if this was so, it would be no ground for postponing the earlier deed. Much stress was laid on the fact that the appellant had no notice of the earlier sale-deed. IN the circumstances of the present case this is immaterial. The respondents are not responsible for the fact, if it be a fact, that the appellant had no notice of the deed. The only other point taken was that the case was covered by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. IN my opinion that section has no application whatever to the facts of the present case. The person in possession of the property was the appellant. There was no undue delay on the part of the respondents in presenting their document for registration. If this section were read in the way suggested by the appellant it would conflict seriously with the Registration Act. The plaintiffs-respondents are entirely without blame in this matter. Their deed was earlier in date and must prevail over that in favour of the appellant. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.