' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- This second appeal is directed against judgments/decrees dated 18-12-1989 and 8-8-1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot, whereby suit for declaration filed by respondent No,1 was decreed and first appeal of the appellant was dismissed, respectively.
2. A short factual background of the case is that Dost Muhammad respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration with the averments that Mst. Noor Bakht (now deceased) entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in his favour for an amount of Rs,2,25,000 and by receiving the entire consideration, executed a sale-deed on 15-11-1981, Respondent No,1 pleaded that on the date fixed for registration of sale-deed, the office hours were over and the sale-deed could not be presented for registration. According to him, Mst. Noor Bakht deceased did not turn up on the next day, whereupon he moved an application to the Sub-Registrar, .Chiniot for registration of sale-deed but the same was declined. He filed an appeal against the order of Sub-Registrar, which was accepted on 5-7-1983 by the Registrar/D.C. And consequently the sale-deed was registered on 1-8-1983.
During the interregnum period of execution and registration of sale-deed in favour of respondent No,1, late Mst. Noor Bakht alienated the same property in favour of the appellants for a sum of Rs,2,00,000 through another registered sale-deed dated 16-11-1982 under the agreement to sell dated 21-4-1982. Registered sale- deed in favour of the appellants was incorporated in the Revenue Record by sanctioning of a mutation, necessitating filing of suit by respondent No,1 for declaration that he is owner of the suit property and the sale- deed/Mutation No,277 dated 16-3- 1983 in favour of the appellants were illegal, void and ineffective qua his ownership. Late Mst. Noor Bakht was arrayed as defendant No,1 in the suit but she did not appear before the trial Court and was proceeded against ex parte whereas appellants being defendants Nos.2 to 7, contested the suit by filing their written statement. Appellants pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without notice and that their agreement to sell with Mst. Noor Bakht was prior in time, hence transfer in their favour will have precedence over the sale-deed in favour of respondent No,1 Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. Learned Civil Judge seized of the matter, after doing the needful, decreed the suit of respondent vide his judgment/ decree, dated 18-12-1989.
3. Appellants being aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful, as the same was dismissed on 8-8-1993.
They, thereafter, filed instant second appeal which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record has now been placed for final determination.
' Respondent. No,1, who is the only contesting party, in response to notice by this Court, appeared and was represented through his counsel whereas other respondents arc heirs of late Mst. Noor Bakht who opted not to contest this appeal and were proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record of the trial Court.
Besides the lawful reasons concurrently assigned by the two Courts below in support of proof of respective registered sale-deeds in favour of the parties, provisions of Registration Act, 1908, attaches a presumption of due execution of the registered documents. Sale-deed in favour of the appellants was registered on 14-11-1982 on the basis of an agreement of sale, dated 21-4-1982 whereas sale-deed in favour of respondent No,1 was executed on 15-11-1980 and was registered on 1-8-1983 under the orders of the District Registrar dated 5-7-1983 and both these sale-deeds in favour of the parties by late Mst. Noor Bakht required determination of question of credence/preference, in any of those. Earlier to dealing with the question of preference of the sale- deeds, I would like to take up the stance of the appellants that Mst. Noor Bakht never appeared before the Sub-Registrar concerned or the District Registrar and the registration of sale-deed, dated 1-8-1983 has no legal value. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Registrar, dated 5-7-1983 was tendered by respondent No,1 in evidence as Exh.P.6, wherein it was remarked that late Mst. Noor Bakht was neither a Parda-observing lady nor she was illiterate, as she had been a Councillor of the local municipality. Sale-deed Exh.P.1 by Mst. Noor Bakht was proved by P.W.1 to have been executed/ inscribed on 15-11-1980, which contained her signatures showing that she was literate. She was party before the Registrar where she pleaded that her signatures were obtained through fraud but she did not challenge order of the Registrar directing registration of sale-deed in favour of respondent No,
1. She was then made party to the suit by respondent No,1 as defendant No,2 but she deliberately avoided to appear before the Civil Court leading to ex parte proceedings against her. Suit of respondent No,1 was decreed by the trial Court but she did not file any appeal before the First Appellate Court and at the same time, did not offer any cross-objection to the appeal filed by the appellants. Mst. Noor Bakht died pending second appeal before this Court but during intervening two decades, she did not challenge sale-deed in favour of respondent No,
1. All this leads one to hold that Mst. Noor Bakht was an educated lady, exposed to public and had executed sale-deed Exh.P.1 that is why she never raised her finger to it.
5. From the above resume of determination of preference to the registered sale-deed, amongst two such deeds, provisions of section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 clinched the controversy, whereunder operation of a registered document has been stretched back to the day from which it would have commenced to operate if it had required no registration. For convenience and ready reference section 47 of Registration Act, 1908 is produced below and reads as under:- "47. Time from which registered document operates.--- A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration."
' This enacted law had previously been considered and applied by superior judiciary of this country.
In the case of Jainullah and another v. Anu Mia and others PLD 1964 Dacca 12, it was held that a document executed earlier but registered later will have precedence over the document executed later but registered earlier. The apex Court in the case of Naseer Ahmad and another v. Asghar Ali 1992 SCM R 2300 graciously mandated that operation of a registered document at a date subsequent to the date of its execution would operate from the date of execution. In another case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Ramzan and 8 others 2002 SCM R 1821 while determining compass of section 47 of the Registration Act, it was laid that title under a registered document is determined from the date of execution and not from the date of its registration. Similar view was reaffirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Fazal Karim through legal heirs and others v. Muhammad Afzal through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2003 SC 818 with the express finding that registered document shall operate from the time from which the same would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made and not from the time of its registration. Entire case-law on the subject besides unambiguous language of section 47 of the Act (ibid) leads to hold that it is the day of execution of the registered document and not the date of its registration which would determine its effectiveness. Sale-deed Exh.P.1. -Was executed in favour of respondent No,1 on 15-11-1981 and was registered on 1-8-1993. The other sale-deed in favour of the appellants was executed on 14-11-1982, on the basis of the alleged agreement to sell dated 21-4-1982, hence sale-deed in favour of respondent No,1 having been executed earlier in time, will have precedence over the sale-deed Exh.D.3. As regards assertion of appellants that they are bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of the sale in favour of respondent No,1, since after execution of sale-deed Exh.P.1 on 15-11-1981, property in question was no more available with Mst.
Noor Bakht to alienate in their favour hence question of their bona fide purchase, did not arise in this case. Scan of record and impugned judgments revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest concurrently by the two Courts below without committing any error of law/facts.
6. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in this appeal was made out and consequently the same, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to cost.