Chandra Reddy, C.J. - (1.) This appeal under clause (15) of the Letters Patent is filed against the Judgment of Seshachelapati, J., in S.A. No. 543 of 1958 with his leave and it raises a question relating to the interpretation of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act.
(2.) The controversy that has arisen in this case is as to which of the two sale deeds- one executed on 11th February, 1950 but registered about a month later, i.e., on 17th March, 1950 and the other made on 21st February, 1950 and registered on the same date-should prevail. The first document, marked as Exhibit B-1, was a conveyance of a one-fourth share in the suit house for a sum of Rs. 285 while the second instrument purported to be a sale deed of the same property for a higher consideration, i.e., Rs. 400 marked as Exhibit A-1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 140 of 1950 (D.M.C., Masulipatam), the second buyer, immediately after he obtained the sale deed, issued a notice to the vendor and the vendee under Exhibit B-1 for partition of the property. As there was no compliance with his demand, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession of the one-fourth share conveyed under Exhibit A-1. That is how the question as to the applicability of section 47 of the Indian Registration Act has arisen.
(3.) The two Courts below and our learned brother, Seshachelapati, J., thought that it was the first sale deed that should take precedence over the second notwithstanding the fact that registration of the second document was earlier than the first. It is this view that is canvassed in this Letters Patent Appeal. As the point debated in this case has to be decided in the light of section 47, it is useful to quote it here. "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." ;