N.K.SODHI, J. - (1.) FACTS giving rise to the litigation out of which the present writ petition has arisen are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass.
(2.) AS per jamabandi for the year 1977-78 Rajinder Singh and Devinder Singh were joint owners in equal shares of land measuring 179 Kanals 19 Marlas in village Janal Tehsil Sunam district Sangrur. Devinder Singh sold 16 Kanals out of his share to Sukhdev Singh petitioner by sale deed dated 29.5.1980. Thereafter he sold out of his share through his Attorney Gurinder Singh another parcel of land measuring 33 Kanals 1 Marla to the petitioner on 11.6.1981. This Sale deed was entered at Serial No. 1270 in the register of the Document Writer though it was registered on 23.6.1981. On the same day i.e. on 11.6.1981. Gurinder Singh Attorney of Devinder Singh also sold 24 Kanals of land to Smt. Gurdev Kaur respondent No. 12. This sale deed was entered at Serial No. 1272 in the register of the Document Writer and was registered on the same day. On 23.12.1982 Rajinder Singh moved an application before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sunam requesting for separation of his half share out of the joint land measuring 179 Kanals 19 Marlas. Surkhdev Singh petitioner and Smt. Gurdev Kaur respondent No. 12 to whom Devinder Singh had sold his land were impleaded as parties. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sunam approved the mode of partition by his order dated 20.9.1984 and thereafter Naksha Be was proposed on the basis of the approved mode of partition and objections invited from the parties. Sukhdev Singh petitioner raised an objection stating inter alia that he had purchased 49 Kanals 1 Marlas of land from Devinder Singh but only 34 Kanals 6 Marlas had been allotted to him by the revenue staff which was less than the land purchased by him. He produced copies of the sale deeds dated 29.5.1980 and 11.6.1981 in support of his plea. The objections raised by the petitioner were rejected and Naksha Be was approved by the Assistant Collector on 25.7.1986. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Sukhdev Singh filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, Sunam which was rejected on 15.12.1986. He also filed a revision petition against the Collector's order and the same was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala by order dated 17.9.1992. Thereafter, the matter was taken in revision before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab who too dismissed the same on 28.5.1997. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed. We have heard counsel for the parties and after going through the inpugned orders are of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. Devinder Singh was owner of one half share in the land measuring 179 Kanals 19 Marlas. He sold the land in excess of his share to Sukhdev Singh petitioner and also to Smt. Gurdev Kaur respondent No. 12. It is common case of the parties that according to the approved mode of partition the last vendee was to suffer the deficiency, if any. Devinder Singh sold 33 Kanals and 1 Marla of land to the petitioner on 11.6.1981 and on the same day he also sold 24 Kanals to Smt. Gurdev Kaur respondent No. 12. It is not in dispute that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was entered at serial No. 1272 in the register of the Document Writer whereas the sale deed in favour of Smt. Gurdev Kaur was entered at serial No. 1272. Since the sale deed in favour of Smt. Gurdev Kaur was registered on the same day and the one executed in favour of Sukhdev Singh petitioner was registered on 23.6.1981, the learned Financial Commissioner took the view that the one registered earlier in point of time would be deemed to have been executed earlier and, therefore, Sukhdev Singh petitioner being the last vendee was to suffer the deficiency in the land. In our opinion, the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner is erroneous and cannot be sustained. The date of registration of a sale deed cannot be taken to be the date of its execution. It is true that the title in the property passes only when the sale deed gets registered and on its registration it takes effect from the date of its execution but the date of execution cannot be taken to be the date of its registration. The question as to who out of Sukhdev Singh petitioner and Smt. Gurdev Kaur was the last vendee will depend upon the fact as to which of the two sale deeds was executed prior in point of time. As already noticed above, both the sale deeds were executed on 11.6.1981. Where two instruments are executed on the same day the one which was executed first takes priority and evidence alone can determine which document was executed first. In the case before us, it is not in dispute that the two sale deeds dated 11.6.1981 in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 12 were entered in the Document Writer's register at serial Nos. 1270 and 1272 respectively. It would, therefore, follow that the one executed in favour of the petitioner was earlier in point of time as entered at serial No. 1270. In this view of the matter, Smt. Gurdev Kaur respondent No. 12 would be the last vendee and she will have to suffer the deficiency on account of the sale made by Devinder Singh in excess of his share.
(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities set aside and the case remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sunam to dispose of the application filed by Rajinder Singh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above. Parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed.;