JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur defendant against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur-defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.
2. Gurcharan Singh and Smt. Harminder Kaur plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land measuring 4 Kanal 3 marla being 83/569 share of the total land measuring 28 kanal 9 marla detailed in the heading of the plaint, on the basis of the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 executed by defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh in favour of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs had also sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale deed allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh in favour of defendant No. 2 Smt. Mohinder Kaur on 24-5-1994 registered on 25-5-1994 was illegal and void, collusive and without consideration and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and the mutation number 9265 sanctioned on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed dated 24/25-5-1995 was also liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs also sought decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from cultivating the land in dispute. It was alleged that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were recorded as co-sharers in the land measuring 28 kanal 9 marla and that defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh was recorded as owner to the extent of 143 shares and that Kulwant Singh had executed sale deed dated 25-4-1994 regarding land measuring 4 kanal 3 marla being 83/569 shares out of the total land measuring 28 kanal 9 marlas, in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that after the execution of the sale deed when the sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration, defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh had slipped away from the office of the Sub-Registrar and for this reason the said sale deed could not be got registered but later on when application under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act was filed before the Sub-Registrar Kulwant Singh half-heartedly admitted the execution of the sale deed but tried to wriggle out the same by alleging that in fact, it was a mortgage deed and consequently the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on 21-10-1994. It was alleged that thereupon petition under Section 73 of the Registration Act was filed before the Registrar (Collector) and the Registrar vide order dated 11-2-1997 directed the registration of the sale deed and thereupon the Sub-Registrar registered the same on 21-4-1997 in compliance with the orders passed by the Registrar (Collector). It was alleged that during the period when Kulwant Singh defendant No. 1 had been contesting the proceedings before the Sub-Registrar and the Registrar, he had not disclosed and had rather concealed about the execution and registration of the sale deed dated 24-5-1994 in favour of defendant No. 2 Smt. Mohinder Kaur, the real aunt of defendant No. 1. It was alleged that the sale deed dated 24-5-1994 was a fake document without consideration and had been executed to defeat and defraud the sale deed, which was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that in fact that said sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 was illegal and void and it was alleged that defendant No. 2 Smt. Mohinder Kaur was not in actual possession of the land in suit and defendant No. 2 was illegally trying to cultivate and occupy the suit land.
3. The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements. It was alleged by defendant No. 1 that the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 in favour of the plaintiffs was false and a forged document because defendant No. 1 had never executed the said sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that in fact defendant No. 1 had executed a mortgage deed dated 25-4-1994 in favour of the plaintiffs and when defendant No. 1 appeared before the Sub-Registrar and came to know that the plaintiffs had prepared a sale deed, then defendant No. 1 refused to get the said deed registered. Defendant No. 2 alleged that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice. Various issues were framed. Parties led evidence.
4. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land measuring 4 kanal 3 marla being 83/569 shares of the land measuring 28 Kanal 9 marla on the basis of the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiffs and that the subsequent sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 on 24-5-1994 and registered on 25-5-1994 was illegal and void being collusive and without consideration executed by defendant No. 1 without any title and to defeat and defraud the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and similarly mutation No. 9265 sanctioned on 2-1-1995 on the basis of the subsequent sale deed dated 24/25-4-1994 was liable to be set aside. It was further held that the plaintiffs had become the co-sharers in the suit property and were entitled to joint possession. Aggrieved against this judgment and decree passed by the trial Court defendant No. 2 Smt. Mohinder Kuar filed appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record upheld the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur. Aggrieved against the judgment, and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Smt. Mohinder Kaur defendant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant submitted before me that the sale deed in favour of defendant-appellant Smt. Mohinder Kaur was registered earlier in point of time than the registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs and as such by virtue of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had not become the owners of the suit property and the sale deed in favour of defendant-appellant Smt. Mohinder Kaur could not be held to be illegal and void. It has further been submitted that under Section 75(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, the registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs shall take effect as if the document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration and since the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar much later (later than execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of defendant-appellant Mohinder Kaur), the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs would be of no consequence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and perusing the record, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and in my opinion, the present appeal filed by defendant-appellant Smt. Mohinder Kaur is liable to be dismissed in limine. Even if the sale deed in favour of defendant-appellant dated 24-5-1994 and registered on 25-5-1994 was earlier in point of time so far as the actual registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs is concerned, yet in my opinion, the same would be no effect considering that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, which was executed by defendant No. 1 in their favour, was earlier in point of time inasmuch as it was executed on 25-4-1994. After the execution of the sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs when it was presented before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration, defendant No. 1 is alleged to have slipped away and had refused to get it registered. The plea taken by him was that in fact he had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiffs but the plaintiffs in collusion got a sale deed executed from him and for that reason he refused to get the said sale deed registered. Be that as it may, it was found by the Registrar that in fact the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 in favour of the plaintiffs was executed by defendant No. 1 and accordingly the Sub-Registrar was directed to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Even in the present suit, it has been found by the Courts below on the basis of the evidence led by the parties that in fact defendant No, 1 had executed the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 in favour of the plaintiffs for consideration and the allegation of defendant No. 1 that in fact, he had executed a mortgage deed and not a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, was not correct. Thus, it would be clear that on 25-4-1994, the defendant No. 1 had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land but later on when it was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar, defendant No. 1 refused to get it registered on some pretext or the other, which was later on found to be not tenable.
7. Once it is found that defendant No. 1 had executed the sale deed on 25-4-1994 in favour of the plaintiffs and subsequently under the orders of the Registrar, it was registered by the Sub-Registrar, in my opinion, it could not be said that the subsequent sale deed dated 24-5-1994 which was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 and registered on 25-5-1994 was legal. In fact, defendant No. 1 having already sold the suit property to the plaintiffs for consideration, had no authority or competence to sell the suit property to defendant No. 2 by virtue of a subsequent sale deed dated 24-5-1994, which was got registered on 25-5-1994. In my opinion, by virtue of the sale deed dated 24/25-5-1994, defendant No. 2 (appellant) had not acquired any right in the suit property and it could not be said that defendant-appellant Smt. Mohinder Kaur had become the owner of the suit property in any manner, whatsoever, by virtue of the said sale deed dated 24/25-5-1994. This is so because defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh (vender) had already sold the suit land to the plaintiffs for consideration, vide sale deed dated 25-4-1994 and as such he could not have sold the same land to the defendant-appellant Smt. Mohinder Kaur by virtue of subsequent sale deed dated 24/ 25-5-1994. In my opinion, the Courts below had given the findings in this regard, after considering the entire evidence led by the parties and as such the findings of the Courts below do not require interference by this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal, especially when the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant has failed to point out any illegality in the findings of the Courts below and has failed to point out any material on the record to show that there was any misregarding of evidence etc. by the Courts below while giving the aforesaid findings.
8. Under Section 75(1) of the Registration Act, 1908, it has been provided that if the Registrar finds that the document has been executed and other requirements have been complied with, it shall order the document to be registered. Under Section 75(3) of the said Act, it is provided that such registration shall take effect as if a document had been registered when it was first duly presented for registration. It is the admitted case of the parties that initially the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 was presented for registration by the plaintiffs after the execution of the said sale deed but defendant No. 1 had slipped away on the pretext that he had executed the mortgage deed and not the sale deed and for that reason the said sale deed could not be got registered on that day. It was subsequently that the said sale deed was formally presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar and after the Sub-Registrar had refused to register the same after noticing the plea taken by defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs had approached the Registrar under Section 73 of the Registration Act and thereafter under Section 75 of the Act the Registrar had ordered the registration of the sale deed. Under these circumstances, it would be clear that initially the sale deed was presented for the purpose of registration on the day when the same was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. That being so. it would be clear that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was presented before the Sub-Registrar prior to the date of the execution and the registration of the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2. Even if it is taken that the sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 27-5-1994 (the date when it was formally presented before the Sub-Registrar) even then it would be of no consequence in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. Section 47 of the said Act provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate even if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs having been executed on 25-4-1994 shall be deemed to operate from the said date in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the said Act and as such defendant No. 1 could not have executed a valid sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 24-5-1994 and could not have got it registered on 25-5-1994 and any such sale deed subsequent to 25-4-1994 would be illegal and void and would not be binding on the plaintiffs and would not affect their rights in the suit property. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the subsequent sale deed dated 24/25-5-1994 in favour of defendant No. 2 (appellant) would be of no consequence.
9. No other point has been urged before me in this appeal.
10. For the reasons recorded above finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
