sale deed deemed to have come into force on 2.8.1971, as the registration thereof dated 3.9.1971 would relate back to the date of execution which had been prior to institution of the suit

Citation

CDJ 2010 SC 927

Har Narayan (died) by Lrs vs mam Chand(d) by Lrs and others

Head note

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 19 - Section 151 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 47 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 19(b) - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - defendant/respondent No.1 had mortgaged the entire land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, for Rs.7,000 - The appellant was also put in possession of the said land. The respondent No.1entered into an Agreement for Sale of 8 kanals of the said property with the appellant for Rs.7500/- and he received Rs.200/- as earnest money in cash while a sum of Rs.7000/- to be adjusted as mortgage amount. However, the said respondent No.1 executed the sale deed on 2.8.1971 in favour of respondent nos.2 to 6 - the appellant filed Suit for specific performance against the respondent no.1 for executing the sale deed of the land in question - the trial Court dismissed the suit on various grounds, inter alia, that sale deed deemed to have come into force on 2.8.1971, as the registration thereof dated 3.9.1971 would relate back to the date of execution which had been prior to institution of the suit and thus, the doctrine of lis pendens would not apply. The said respondents 2 to 6 were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. Therefore, the sale deed in their favour was to be protected - Appeals was dismissed - This court held that the sale executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on 2.8.1971 could not be termed as a complete sale until the document got registered on 3.9.1971. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1908 the effect of registration would be that registration would relate back to the date of execution but it does not mean that sale would be complete in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 prior to 3.9.1971 i.e. the date of registration of the sale deed. In view of the above, as sale stood completed during the pendency of the suit, doctrine of lis pendens is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case - the appellant had been in possession of the suit land being a mortgagee since 1970 and this fact had also been mentioned by the respondent No.1 in the sale deed - respondents No.2 to 6 were fully aware that the suit land was in possession of the appellant. Thus, they cannot take the benefit of the provisions of Section 19(b) of the Act, 1963 - The judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside – appeal was allowed.

Case Law Referred:
1. R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors. v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1658
2. Guruswamy Nadar v. P. Lakshmi Ammal (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors., (2008) 5 SCC 796
3. Hiralal Agrawal Etc. v. Rampadarath Singh & Ors. Etc., AIR 1969 SC 244
4. S.K. Mohammad Rafiq (Dead) by LRs. V. Khalilul Rehmad & Anr. Etc., AIR 1972 SC 2162
5. Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. Arvind Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 73
6. Chandrika Singh (Dead) by LRs. V. Arvind Kumar Singh (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 2006 SCC 2199.
7. Ram Saran Lall & Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuer & Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1747.

Comparative Citations:
2010 (4) KLT 359 (SC), 2011 (1) MLJ 723, 2011 (1) LW 402, 2011 (1) SCJ 376, 2010 (13) SCC 128, 2010 AIR(SCW) 6555, 2012 (1) KCCR 1, 2010 (4) CLT 137, 2010 (7) SLT 337, 2010 (96) ALLINDCAS 214, 2011 AirCC 39, 2011 (2) AIR(Jhar) R 447, 2010 AIR(SC) 78, 2011 (1) AWC 756, 2010 (83) ALLLR 716, 2012 (2) ALD 34, 2011 (1) ARC 187, 2011 (1) BBCJ 61, 2010 (4) CivCC 649, 2010 (3) DNJ 1140, 2011 (1) GLR 601, 2011 (1) ICivC 266, 2010 (11) JT 641, 2010 (4) RCR(Civil) 853, 2010 (10) Scale 617, 2010 (12) SCR 974, 2011 (1) WLC 35,