http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

[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: