Whether the sale deed was registered with the interpolation made about the description/area of the property sold and the same is valid ?
held that 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.
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.
2024 INSC 1
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 1 of 8
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013
KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GEJO. (D) TH.LRS & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. 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
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 2 of 8
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 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
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 3 of 8
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 Kuer1 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
1 AIR 1961 SC 1747
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 4 of 8
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:
“47. 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 registerable 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.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 5 of 8
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 AttorneyGeneral'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 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 [AIR (1921) Pat 150] . We
believe that the same view was expressed
in Nareshchandra Datta v. Gireeshchandra
Das [(1935) ILR 62 Cal 979] and Gobardhan
Bar v. Guna Dhar Bar [ILR (1940) II Cal 270].”
(underline supplied)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 6 of 8
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.”
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 7 of 8
10. Every sale deed in respect of property worth more than
Rs. 100/- is compulsorily registerable under Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Thus, a sale deed executed 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.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9098 OF 2013 Page 8 of 8
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.2 , 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.
……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
……………………..J.
(Pankaj Mithal)
New Delhi;
January 02, 2024
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1026
