Supreme Court of India
Hamda Ammal vs Avadiappa Pathar And 3 Others on 7 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990 SCR, SUPL. (2) 594 1991 SCC (1) 715, (1990) 2 LJR 590, AIR 2005 ANDHRA PRADESH 279, 1991 (1) SCC 715, AIRONLINE 1990 SC 82, 1991 HRR 56, (1991) CIVIL COURT CASE 218, (1991) 2 MAD LW 110, (1991) 1 MAD LJ 52, (1991) 1 LAND LR 332, (1991) 1 ANDH WR 65, (1991) 1 ALL WC 157, 1991 ALL CJ 733, (1991) 2 CIV LJ 324, (1991) 1 APLJ 50, (1991) 1 BLJ 490, (1990) 4 JT 391, (1991) BANK J 418, (1991) 1 LJR 129.2, (1991) 1 RRR 396, (1990) 2 ORISSA LR 619, (1991) CIVILCOURTC 269, 1990 PUNJ LJ 541, (1990) 2 PUN LR 545, 1990 REVLR 2 267, 1991 ALL CJ 2 733, 1991 BLJR 2 753, (1991) CIVILCOURTC 218, 1991 REVLR 1 1, (1991) 1 RRR 312, (1990) 4 JT 391 (SC), (1991) 1 LJR 129
Author: T.K. Thommen
Bench: T.K. Thommen, K.N. Saikia, N.M. Kasliwal
PETITIONER:
HAMDA AMMAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AVADIAPPA PATHAR AND 3 OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/11/1990
BENCH:
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
BENCH:
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 SCR Supl. (2) 594 1991 SCC (1) 715
JT 1990 (4) 391 1990 SCALE (2)970
ACT:
Code of Civil Procedure--Order 38 rules 5 and 10--At-
tachment before judgment of property after execution of sale
deed but before its registration effect on the rights of the
vendee.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant purchased the suit property from Govindra-
ju Pathar, Muthulinga Asari and Gurusami Pathar--Respond-
ents-vendors by a sale deed executed in her favour on
9.9.1970 and got the sale deed registered on 26.10.1970.
Before registration of the sale deed, respondent Avadiappa
filed a money suit for the recovery of the amount on
13.9.1970 against the said vendors and obtained attachment
before judgment of the property in question on 17.9.1970.
Later the said money suit was decreed in his favour. The
appellant claimed rights in the property on the strength of
the sale deed executed in her favour on 26.10.70 by filing a
suit and the question that arose for consideration in the
said suit was whether she was entitled to the property in
question. The suit was decreed in her favour but on appeal,
the High Court reversed the order of the trial court. Hence
this appeal by the plaintiff appellant.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: A transaction of sale having already taken place
even prior to the institution of a suit cannot be said to
have been made with the intention to obstruct or delay the
execution of any decree.
The Legislature has provided in Section 47 of the Regis-
tration Act that it shall operate from the time from which
it would commence to operate if no registration thereof had
been required or made and not from the time of its registra-
tion. Thus the vendee gets rights which will be related back
on registration from the date of the execution of the sale
deed and such rights are protected under Order 38 rule 10,
C .P.C. read together with Section 47 of the Registration
Act.
Ram Saran Lal and Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuer and Ors.,
[1962] 2 S.C.R. 474; Hiralal Agrawal etc. v. Rampadarath
Singh and Ors. etc.,
595
[1969] 1 SCR 328; Radhakishan L. Toshniwal v. Shridhar,
[1961] 1 SCR 248 and Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh, [1959]
SCR 878 and Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh, [1959] SCR 878,
distinguished.
Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedltaran v. Chandratnaath
Balakrishand Anr., [1990] 3 SCC 291; Tilakdhari Singh v.
Gour Narain, AIR 1921 Pat. 150; Raja Ram v. Giraj Kishore
and Anr., AIR 1964 All. 369; referred to.
Faiyazauddin Khan v. Mst. Zahur Bibi, AIR 1938 Pat. 134;
Champat Rao Mahadeo v. Mahadeo Baijirao Kunbi and Ors., AIR
1937 Nagpur 143; Kalvanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar
and Ors., ILR 50 Madras 193, Approved.
JUDGMENT: