Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It will be seen from what I have stated that the petitioner's kobala was earlier in point of time, but it was registered later than Rajatala's kobala. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner before the courts below that since, under Section 47, Registration Act, a registered document would operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration had foeen required, that Is to say, from the date of execution, the petitioner was entitled to pre-empt the land, since his kobala, although registered on 10-6-1950, would operate from 2-1-1950, and therefore, would operate from a date earlier than the date of the execution of Rajabala's kobala. If so, he would be already a co-sharer before Rajabala's purchase was completed. The courts below have repelled that contention in the view 'that while, as between the purchaser and the vendor an instrument of transfer would take eject from the date of its execution and not from the date of registration, the position was different as against third parties. As against third parties, an instrument of transfer, if required to be registered by law, would operate only from the date of registration.