Registered Sale Deed Where Entire Consideration Is Paid Operates From Date Of Its Execution; Unilateral Corrections Made By Seller After Execution Has To Be Ignored: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a sale deed executed with entire consideration will be operative from the date of execution per application of Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 (Act) and any unilateral interpolations made after the date of execution has to be ignored.
The Court dismissed a Civil Appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court that restored the Trial Court’s decision which upheld the original sale deed’s validity.
The Court held that, in this instance, the operative document is the sale deed as it was during its execution.
“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”, the Bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed.
Registered Sale Deed Where entire Consideration Is Paid Operates From Date Of Its Execution; Unilateral Corrections Made By Buyer After Execution Has To Be ig
Advocate Jaspreet Gogia appeared for the Appellant.
The Civil Appeal was filed by Defendants challenging the judgment of the High Court. The case involved Smt. Gejo, the Plaintiff, seeking ownership of a land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas based on a 1975 sale deed. The defendants, including Kanwar Raj Singh and Smt. Ravinder Kaur, contested the suit, asserting that only a 1/3rd share, measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas, was sold.
The Trial Court decreed in favour of the plaintiff, confirming the sale of the entire land. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which allowed the appeal, stating the correction in the sale deed was bona fide. The Plaintiff's second appeal to the High Court succeeded posthumously, leading to the restoration of the Trial Court's decree.
The Apex Court noted that section 47 stipulates that a registered document takes effect from the time it would have commenced operating if registration were not mandated. For compulsorily registerable documents registered under the Act, their operation can retroactively begin, depending on the transaction's nature.
“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”, the Bench noted.
Regarding Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TP Act), the Bench observed that every sale deed concerning property valued at more than Rs. 100 is mandatory for registration. Consequently, a sale deed, constituting an instrument of sale, attains this status only upon registration by the vendor. The Constitution Bench's decision pertains to the completion of the sale, not the date from which the sale deed becomes operative. Section 47 of the Act focuses on the timing from which a registered document starts operating, distinct from the sale's completion.
In this case, the Court noted that the entire consideration for the sale deed was paid on the date of its execution. Despite subsequent unilateral corrections made by the first defendant after execution but before registration, the sale deed, as originally executed, would operate under Section 47 of the Act. Consequently, the High Court's view, which upholds the sale deed as originally executed, is deemed correct.
In this case, the second appeal was governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act (PC Act), 1918, as established in the case of Satyender and Ors. v Saroj and Ors. According to clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 41, a decision contrary to law is a valid ground for interference. The High Court's intervention in the decision of the first Appellate Court, which was deemed contrary to Section 47 of the Registration Act, is considered justified under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the impugned order.
Cause Title: Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th. Lrs. v Gejo. (D) Th.Lrs & Ors. (2024 INSC 1)
