Heard Sri Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manvendra Nath Singh on behalf of respondent no. 5.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly as well as order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 - Settlement Officer Consolidation.
The facts of the case as admitted to both the parties, are that Fatehchand was a recorded "Bhumidhar" in respect of land of Plot No. 51/1, area 1.1.08 to the extent of half share. Fatehchand executed a registered sale deed dated 03.06.1998 in favour of respondent no. 7- Jhajan Lal.
Subsequently, respondent no. 7- Jhajan Lal again executed a registered sale deed dated 04.12.1998 in favour of the petitioners. Fatehchand also executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no. 5- Chet Ram on 23.05.1998 which was registered by the Sub-Registrar on 12.06.1998.
An objection under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") was filed by the petitioners for mutation of their names on the strength of the sale deed dated 04.12.1998 as well as 03.06.1988 before the Consolidation Officer. The respondent no. 5 - Chet Ram also filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, for mutation of his name on the basis of sale deed dated 23.05.1988, which was registered on 12.06.1988. Both the aforesaid cases were consolidated. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 04.09.2013 allowed the application filed by the petitioners and mutated their names in the Revenue Record in place of Fatehchand and Jhajan Lal. The claim of the respondent no.5- Chet Ram on the basis of sale deed dated 23.05.1998 registered on 12.06.1998 was rejected on the ground that the sale deed in favour of Jhajan Lal was registered on 03.06.1998, although the sale deed of petitioners was registered on 12.06.1998 and, therefore, the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 5- Chet Ram has no value.
Against that order, an appeal was filed by the respondent no.5- Chet Ram before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The said appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 19.03.2015 with the finding that the date of execution of sale deed is the relevant date and since the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no.5- Chet Ram was prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent no.7- Jhajan Lal, therefore, the name of the respondent no.5- Chet Ram was mutated in the revenue record. Against that order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the petitioners filed a revision which was dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.08.2018. The orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 20.08.2018 and 19.03.2015 are impugned in the writ petition.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the Consolidation Authorities have committed illegality while accepting the claim of the respondent no. 5- Chet Ram although the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.7 - Jhajan Lal on 03.06.1998 and the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 5- Chet Ram on 12.06.1988 and, therefore, both the parties have committed illegality by accepting the date of execution of the sale deed while the sale deed should have been treated to be valid on the date it was registered.
It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses examined on the behalf of the respondent No. 5 themselves admitted that the sale deed was registered on the same date it was executed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that date of registration has no value but the date of execution has to be seen and the registration of sale deed will take effect from the time when it was executed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance of upon Apex Court judgment in the case of Gurubax Singh Vs. Kartar Singh and others, reported in 2002 (93) RD 280.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
It is admitted by the parties that Fatehchand executed two sale deeds in respect of same plot first on 03.06.1998 in favour of Jhajan Lal and second on 23.05.1998 in favour of respondent No.5- Chet Ram which was registered subsequently on 12.06.1998.
Now the question that arises for consideration is that from what date, the sale deed would be considered to be effective i.e. the date of execution of the sale deed or the date of registration?
Apex Court while dealing with Section 47-A of the Registration Act, 1908 in case of Gurubax Singh (supra) has held that a document will be effective from the date of its execution and not from the time when it was registered.
For ready reference the relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinunder:-
"Jarnail Singh, respondent No. 2 executed two documents of sale (Exs. P-2 and D-l) on November 25, 1991. Having regard to the findings of the Courts below that Ex. P-2 was executed earlier than Ex.D.I-land having noted Ex. P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. and it was not shown when Ex. D-l 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-l and thus dismissed the second appeal. It is against the said order that this Special Leave Petition is filed.
In view of the provisions of Section 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-l . We find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
In view of the provisions of Section 47- A of the Registration Act 1908 as well as from the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it is apparent that the sale deed will take effect on the date of its execution and not from the date of its registration.
So far as, the question as raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that witnesses examined on behalf of respondent No.5- Chet Ram admitted that the sale deed was registered on the same day it was executed, is concerned, suffice it to say that oral evidence cannot supersede the documentary evidence. It is on the record that the sale deed was executed on 23.05.1998 which was registered on 12.06.1998. The said documentary evidence cannot be turned down on the basis of oral evidence.
In these circumstances, the findings recorded by both the Consolidation Authorities i.e. the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.9.2018 Sweety