MANU/SC/0002/2024

Equivalent/Neutral Citation: 2024(255)AIC 246, AIR2024SC 238, 2024(2)ALD56, 2024 (164) ALR 232, 2024(2)ALT1, 2024(1)BLJ176, 2024 (1)
C C C 32 , 2024(1)C ivilC C (S.C .), 137(2024)C LT605, 2024(1)IC C 1073, 2024 INSC 1, 2024 MWN 327, 2024 MWN 327, (2024)213PLR45,
2024(1)RC R(C ivil)474, 2024 165 RD99, 2024(1)SC ALE31, (2024)2SC C 416

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9098 of 2013
Decided On: 02.01.2024
Kanwar Raj Singh (D) th. L.Rs. Vs. Gejo (D) th. L.Rs. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Jaspreet Gogia, AOR, Vipin Gogia, Karanvir Gogia and
Varnika Gupta, Advs.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. Unsuccessful Defendants have preferred this Civil Appeal for taking exception to the
judgment and order dated 16th March 2010 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High
Court. The Respondents are the legal representatives of Smt. Gejo. She 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 6th
June 1975 and registered on 23rd 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 2/3rd 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 case of 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.
2. 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. On 23rd August 1984, 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.
SUBMISSIONS
3 . Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that as the price of the
02-02-2025 (Page 1 of 4) www.manupatra.com Debabrata Roy
property subject matter of the sale deed was only Rs. 30,000/-, it is impossible that a
vast area of 71 kanals 8 marlas was sold under the sale deed. The learned Counsel
submitted that the sale took effect from the date on which the sale deed was registered
and not from the date on which it was executed. He submitted that what is conveyed by
the sale deed is what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. He submitted that even
the agreement for sale executed before the execution of the sale deed refers to the sale
of 1/3rd share of the first Defendant and not the entire property. He submitted that the
entry of the name of the original Plaintiff in the revenue records as the owner of the
whole area would not confer any title as what is relevant is the description of the
property in the registered sale deed. The learned Counsel relied upon a decision of the
Constitution Bench in the case of Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer MANU/SC/0280/1961
: AIR 1961 SC 1747 and 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 will prevail. The Respondents are not
represented.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
4. We have perused the judgments of the Trial Court, District Court and the impugned
judgment of the High Court. The first Appellate Court recorded that it is the case of the
Defendants that before registration of the sale deed, the first Defendant incorporated a
change in the sale deed stating that it was in respect of 1/3rd share in the area of 71
kanals and 8 marlas. The first Appellate Court noted that the original first Defendant's
evidence was that the correction was made by him with his own pen in the sale deed
before its registration. The Appellants are the legal representatives of the first
Defendant. In this case, it is an admitted position that while executing the sale deed,
the area of the land sold was shown as 71 kanals and 8 marlas and subsequently, the
area was altered to 1/3rd of the said area by the first Defendant before the sale deed
was registered.
5 . The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has relied upon Section 47 of The
Registration Act, 1908 (the Registration Act), which reads thus:
4 7 . Time from which registered document operates.-A registered document
shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if
no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its
registration.
6. On plain reading of Section 47, it provides that a registered document shall operate
from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof
was required. Thus, when a compulsorily registrable 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.
7 . Now, we come to the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Ram Saran
Lall (Supra). In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Constitution Bench held thus:
8. We do not think that the learned Attorney- General's contention is well
founded. We will assume that the learned Attorney-General's construction of the
instrument of sale that the property was intended to pass under it on the date
02-02-2025 (Page 2 of 4) www.manupatra.com Debabrata Roy
 of the instrument is correct. Section 47 of the Registration Act does not,
however, say when a sale would be deemed to be complete. It only permits a
document when registered, to operate from a certain date which may be earlier
than the date when it was registered. The object of this Section is to decide
which of two or more registered instruments in respect of the same property is
to have effect. The Section applies to a document only after it has been
registered. It has nothing to do with the completion of the registration and
therefore nothing to do with the completion of a sale when the instrument is
one of sale. A sale which is admittedly not completed until the registration of
the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed
earlier because by virtue of Section 47 the instrument by which it is effected,
after it has been registered, commences to operate from an earlier date.
Therefore we do not think that the sale in this case can be said, in view of
Section 47, to have been completed on January 31, 1946. The view that we
have taken of Section 47 of the Registration Act seems to have been taken in
Tilakdhari Singh v. Gour Narain [ MANU/BH/0024/1920 : AIR (1921) Pat 150].
We believe that the same view was expressed in Nareshchandra Datta v.
Gireeshchandra Das [ MANU/WB/0130/1935 : (1935) ILR 62 Cal 979] and
Gobardhan Bar v. Guna Dhar Bar [ MANU/WB/0132/1940 : ILR (1940) II Cal
270].
(underline supplied)
8 . The Constitution Bench held that Section 47 of the Registration Act does not deal
with the issue when the sale is complete. The Constitution Bench held that Section 47
applies to a document only after it has been registered, and it has nothing to do with
the completion of the sale when the instrument is one of sale. It was also held that once
a document is registered, it will operate from an earlier date, as provided in Section 47
of the Registration Act.
9. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1984 (the Transfer of Property Act) reads
thus:
54. "Sale" defined.-"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price
paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made.-Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of
the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or
other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case
of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such
transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the
property.
Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the
buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for sale.-A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract
that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the
parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.
10. Every sale deed in respect of property worth more than Rs. 100/- is compulsorily
registrable Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, a sale deed executed

02-02-2025 (Page 3 of 4) www.manupatra.com Debabrata Roy

by the vendor becomes an instrument of sale only after it is registered. The decision of
the Constitution Bench only deals with the question of when the sale is complete; it
does 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.
11. Now, coming to the facts of this case, the consideration 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. It is not even the first Defendant's case that the subsequent correction or
interpolation was made before its registration with the consent of the original Plaintiff.
Therefore, in this case, what will operate is the sale deed as it existed when it was
executed.
12. Therefore, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court.
13. As held in the case of Satyender and Ors. v. Saroj and Ors. MANU/SC/1008/2022,
the second appeal in the present case will be governed by Section 41 of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1918. Under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 41, a decision being
contrary to law is a ground for interference. The decision of the first Appellate Court
was contrary to Section 47 of the Registration Act. The High Court was justified in
interfering with the decision of the first Appellate Court in a second appeal Under
Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

02-02-2025 (Page 4 of 4) www.manupatra.com Debabrata Roy