Neelamsetti Kataji Rao And Others vs Regati Ramaraju on 23 March, 2001
In Krishna Ceramics case (supra) the duration of lease contemplated by the parties under an agreement, which was enforced through a decree for specific performance, was in question. It was held that when a document does not say as to from when it should come into operation, as per Section 47 of the Registration Act, the moment the document is registered title to the property would pass to the transferee from the date of its execution. There is a little doubt about the law laid down therein. The said decision does deal with a case of a document which is registered years after its presentation for registration as in the case of Ex.B4. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation of three years begins to run not from the date of the instrument, but from the date when the facts "entitling the plaintiff' to have the document rescinded or cancelled "first become known to him". Plaintiff is not the executant of Ex.B4 dated 30-3-1978. Therefore, he cannot be imputed with knowledge of the date of or its execution. He can be imputed with notice, or knowledge, of Ex.B4 from the date of its registration, in view of the definition of 'Notice' in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. So, though Ex.B4 can be said to have come into operation from the "date of its execution, i.e., 30-3-1978, plaintiff can be imputed with knowledge thereof only from the date of its registration, i.e., 18-7-1981.