GURBAX SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2002-2-86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
February 11,2002
GURBAX SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
KARTAR SINGH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAJENDRA SAHKARI AWAS SAMIT LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-44] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF KERALA VS. GEORGE JACOB [LAWS(KER)-2005-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
S.ELANGO VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-444] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU CHESS ASSOCIATION VS. DISTRICT REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
P SATISH PAI VS. B YESWANTH SHENOY [LAWS(KAR)-2010-6-68] [RELIED ON]
MOTILAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA VS. DATTATRAY BANDU JAGTAP [LAWS(BOM)-2005-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH KUMAR MALIK VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-347] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN BHUSAN GUHA VS. AMAL ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2009-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
KANJI RAVARIA VS. ANIS ISMAIL KHOJA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-231] [REFERRED TO]
REKHRAJ AND ORS. VS. ROSHANLAL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-153] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN GRAH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-3-84] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD SINGH VS. CHANDRAWATI DEVI [LAWS(PAT)-2010-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
S.N. Simha VS. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Commerce and Industries Department, Vikasa Soudha, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560001 and others [LAWS(KAR)-2012-10-176] [REFERRED TO]
BUDDALA VEERASWAMY VS. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-127] [REFERRED TO]
BIJULI CHAKRABORTY VS. BHUBENESWARI BAISHYA [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
RADHIKA DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT BEGWANI VS. RANU PARUI [LAWS(CAL)-2024-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
BALESHWAR SHARMA VS. NAGESHWAR PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-617] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. ALL KERALA DOCUMENTS WRITERS [LAWS(KER)-2005-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
VED NATH VS. INDRA VIKRAM ALIAS CHHOTE SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2002-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.)Jarnail Singh, respondent No. 2, executed two documents of sale (Exs. P-2 and D-1) on November 25, 1991. Having regard to the findings of the Courts below that Ex. P-2 was executed earlier than Ex. D-1 and having noted that Ex. P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. and it was not shown when Ex. D-1 was executed in favour of the petitioner, the High Court, vide its order dated October 25, 2001, in RSA No. 4050 of 1999 confirmed the concurrent finding of the Courts below holding that Ex. P-2 prevails over Ex. D-1 and thus dismissed the second appeal. It is against the said order that this Special Leave Petition is filed.
(3.)In view of the provisions of S. 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is well settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently. In view of the concurrent findings, referred to above, the High Court has rightly held that Ex. P-2 prevails over Ex. D-1. We find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
(2.)Jarnail Singh, respondent No. 2, executed two documents of sale (Exs. P-2 and D-1) on November 25, 1991. Having regard to the findings of the Courts below that Ex. P-2 was executed earlier than Ex. D-1 and having noted that Ex. P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. and it was not shown when Ex. D-1 was executed in favour of the petitioner, the High Court, vide its order dated October 25, 2001, in RSA No. 4050 of 1999 confirmed the concurrent finding of the Courts below holding that Ex. P-2 prevails over Ex. D-1 and thus dismissed the second appeal. It is against the said order that this Special Leave Petition is filed.
(3.)In view of the provisions of S. 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is well settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently. In view of the concurrent findings, referred to above, the High Court has rightly held that Ex. P-2 prevails over Ex. D-1. We find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.