TMI Blog1972 (11) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share in the property was mutated by the revenue authorities in favour of his sister Shrimati Ramo. On 23rd June, 1960, Kundan Singh minor, through his father Milkha Singh., and Milkha Singh on his own behalf as well, brought a suit, out of which the present second appeal has arisen, against Ramo, for declaration that they were the owners-in-possession of the land in question. 2. The suit was contested by Ramo, defendant No. 1, on a number of pleas, but in the present appeal, it is not necessary to mention them, because the case is being decided on a preliminary issue. 3. During the pendency of the suit, on 10th February, 1961, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, saying that they had c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing that instead of trying the issue regarding the compromise as a preliminary one, the whole case was decided. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the suit had not been compromised by Ramo and that she could not do so, because she had sold the property in dispute to defendants Nos. 2 to 10 on 28th October, 1960, and therefore, the compromise alleged to have been made by her on 7th February, 1961, was not legally effective. On merits, under Issue No. 1 it was held that Milkha Singh was the owner of half share in the land, except Khasra Nos. 193, 646 and 648 which were in possession of the tenants of the mortgagees, while Kundan Singh, minor plaintiffs No. 1, was neither owner of the other half share nor was he in possession of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0, was registered. It is only on the registration of the deed that the said sale became complete and title passed to the defendants. According to him, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge had made an error in law, when he held that the title had already passed to the vendees on 28th October, 1960, when Ramo executed the sale-deed in their favour. 11. The facts are not in dispute. It is agreed that the sale-deed, Exhibit D-1 by Ramo in favour of Sohan Singh and others, defendants Nos. 2 to 10 had been executed on 28th October, 1960. This document had been presented for registration on 15th February, 1961, but the same was actually registered on 1st March, 1961. The question for decision is as to when did the title in the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of was required by law and not from the time of its registration. Admittedly, this document, as I have already said, was executed on 28th October, 1960. If under the law, it was not required to be registered, it would have operated from the time it was executed. But it had to be registered under the law and, therefore, under the provisions of Section 47 of the Registration Act, it would operate on the date when it was executed, but that would happen only if it was subsequently registered. If it was not registered, no title in the property would pass to the vendees under it. However, the moment it was registered the title in the property would pass to the transferees from the date of its execution. 15. Now coming to the authorities relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecome complete in order to give rise to a right of pre-emption. 17. A Division Bench of this Court in Ram Chand's case 1972 Pun LJ 584 held: A sale is completed only when registration of the sale deed is completed as contemplated by Section 61 of the Registration Act. A sale which is admittedly not completed until the registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of Section 47 the instrument by which it is effected, after it has been registered, commences to operate from an earlier date. 18. The above-quoted ruling relied on Ram Saran Lall's case MANU/SC/0280/1961 : AIR 1961 SC 1747 and dealt with in Section 21 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er point was agitated before us by the learned counsel for the appellants, except this that his clients were prejudiced, because no specific issue was framed regarding the alleged will dated 15-12-1957. 22. This point was never raised either before the trial Court or the lower Appellate Court. The parties under stood their respective positions and led evidence regarding the will under Issue No. 1 and it was on that account that no specific issue was framed regarding it. Besides, nobody even claimed a separate issue regarding the said will and that matter has been dealt with while discussing issue No. 1. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants have not been prejudiced by the non-framing of a separate issue regarding the will. 23. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
