"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"./2000J1_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003ePLEA FOR DELETION OF SECTION 47 OF REGISTRATION ACT, 1908\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003ecosmos\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eSaif\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e4\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2002-04-11T05:44:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2003-01-03T07:01:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e1878\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e10709\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eoratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e89\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e21\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e13151\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e9.2720\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:View\u003eNormal\u003c/w:View\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e2.85 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e2\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Font Definitions */\r\n@font-face\r\n\t{font-family:Tahoma;\r\n\tpanose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;\r\n\tmso-font-charset:0;\r\n\tmso-generic-font-family:swiss;\r\n\tmso-font-pitch:variable;\r\n\tmso-font-signature:553679495 -2147483648 8 0 66047 0;}\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\np.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:6.35in 841.7pt;\r\n\tmargin:.75in 0in 2.9pt .35in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003ePLEA FOR\r\nDELETION OF SECTION 47 OF REGISTRATION ACT, 1908\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:2.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eBY\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eCh.\r\nMuhammad Bashir Advocate, Faisalabad\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSection 47 of the Registration\r\nAct, 1908 not only conflicts with section 49 of the Registration Act, by\r\nreference to the time since when a registered document is to be given effect\r\nto, but also has become a source of fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn order to appreciate, the two\u0026#8209;fold\r\neffects of section 47 it is thought expedient to reproduce the said provisions\r\nand section 23 of the Registration Act and sections 54 and 78 of Transfer of\r\nProperty Act, 1882. Section 47: \u0026quot;A registered document shall operate from\r\nthe time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration\r\nthereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its\r\nregistration\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSection 49. \u0026quot;No document\r\nrequired to be registered under this Act or under any earlier law providing for\r\nor relating to registration of documents shall operate to create, declare,\r\nassign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title\r\nor interest whether vested or contingent, to or in immovable property unless it\r\nhas been registered.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSection 23. \u0026quot;Subject to the\r\nprovision contained in sections 24, 25 and 26 no document other than a will\r\nshall be accepted for registration, when presented for that purpose to the\r\nproper officer within four months from the date of its execution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSection 54. of Transfer of\r\nProperty Act, 1582:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Sale\u0026quot; is a transfer of\r\nownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part\r\npromised. Such transfer, in the case\u0027 of tangible immovable property of the\r\nvalue of one hundred rupees and upwards or in the case of a reversion or other\r\nintangible things, can be, made only be a registered instrument.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSection 78 of Transfer of\r\nProperty Act, 1882:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Where through the fraud,\r\nmisrepresentation or gross neglect of a prior mortgagee, another person has\r\nbeen induced to advance money on the security of the mortgaged property, the\r\nprior mortgagee shall be postponed to the subsequent mortgagee.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAs to the conflict between\r\nsection 47 and section 49, the comparative study of the said two sections makes\r\nit manifest. Section 49 does not recognise the existence of a document unless\r\nit is registered. It is only the act of registration of a document under\r\nsection 60 of the Registration Act which has the magic effect of creating,\r\ndeclaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest in\r\nimmovable property. On the contrary, section 47 provides that a registered\r\ndocument shall operate from the date of its execution. The time gap between the\r\nexecution and registration of a document can extend. up to 4 months under\r\nsection 23. It can even go beyond that. Suppose a document is presented for\r\nregistration within the said time but its registration is refused under section\r\n71. The Executee can approach the Registrar for remedies provided under\r\nsections 72 and 75. Even further remedy can be availed under section 77 by\r\nfiling suit in the Civil Court, seeking direction for registration of a\r\ndocument. This whole exercise may consume a lot of time. When ultimately the\r\ndocument is registered it will relate back to the date of execution. An\r\nanamolous situation emerges when section 49, on one hand, provides that a\r\ndocument shall take effect from the date of its registration and section 47, on\r\nthe other, provides that effect of registration shall extend retrospectively to\r\nthe date of execution. This fictional extension of effect of registration of a\r\ndocument under section 47 to the date of its execution, cannot co\u0026#8209;exist\r\nwith non\u0026#8209;effectiveness of execution of a document under section 49 unless\r\nit is registered. This point of conflict has not been dealt with in any\r\nreported case.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eAs to the second objection to\r\nsection 47 that it has encouraged fraud, it has two aspects. One, where the\r\nexecutant has exploited the time gap between the execution and registration of\r\n\u0027 a document and two, where third parties interests have been prejudicially\r\naffected. Section 47, taken on its own footing, seems to convey that executant\r\nof a document is bound down to keep the property intact till the registration\r\nthereof and as soon as registration takes place it will \u0027operate\r\nretrospectively from the date of execution. The Registration Act, by the very\r\nnature of its object, deals with transfer of property from one person to\r\nanother through the media of document and it, thus, remains confined to\r\nexecutant and executee of a document and is not concerned with stranger to\r\ndocument.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIf the operation of section 47 is\r\nrestricted to the parties to a document and the subject\u0026#8209;matter of the\r\ndocument remains intact till the registration \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-family:\r\nTahoma\u0027\u003eof the document then the retrospectivity of Registration. to the date\r\nof execution of document does not pose any difficulty. The operation of section\r\n47 does not \u003c/span\u003eextend beyond it. It is so held in AIR 1937 Rangoon 446 and\r\nPLD 1965 Dacca 205. In the former report it has been held that \u0026quot;the\r\nrequirement of registration of a document is an evidentiary requirement\u0026quot;\r\nan unregistered transfer is inchoate and is ineffective until registered. But it\r\nnevertheless exists and when registered operates from the date of its\r\nexecution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn the later report it has been\r\nheld that \u0026quot;section 47 has little to do with the completeness or\r\nincompleteness of a, transfer, as it has nothing to do also with the\r\ncompleteness or incompleteness of Registration. The incompleteness in the text\r\nof section 47 is the incompleteness of a document and not of the transfer as\r\nsuch. It cannot be disputed that a transfer which is incomplete by reason of\r\nbreach of any statutory provision specifying the mode, its completeness cannot\r\nbe completed by registration. The sole purpose of section 47 is to meet\r\nobjections touching the incompleteness of a document during the period it\r\nremained incomplete due to want of registration. The rule as to commencement of\r\noperation contained in section 47, is, in terms, to be confined, in its\r\napplication, to the document. Its impact on the transfer can affect only the\r\ntransferor and the transferee.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt has no relation to the rights\r\nof a person who is not a party to the document. He comes into the picture only\r\nafter the registration i.e. when a deed of transfer duly completed by\r\nregistration comes into existence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe difficulty, however, has\r\narisen in a situation where vendor of a property firstly executes a sale\u0026#8209;deed\r\nin favour of a vendee and then pending registration of that sale\u0026#8209;deed,\r\nsells away the same property to another person and executes a sale\u0026#8209;deed\r\nand gets it also registered, before the \u0026#8209;first sale\u0026#8209;deed is\r\nregistered. To resolve the question as to which of the sale\u0026#8209;deeds is to\r\nbe given priority over the other, the Courts have interpreted section 47 so as\r\nto give priority to sale\u0026#8209;deed which was executed first in point of time\r\nthough registered subsequent to the execution and registration of the\r\nsubsequent sale\u0026#8209;deed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eI refer to cases reported in 52\r\nIC 99 and 192 IC 812 in which the rule has been followed. The ratio of both the\r\nreports is reproduced hereunder:\u0026#8209;\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn 52 IC 99 it is held that\r\n\u0026quot;A executed a sale\u0026#8209;deed of certain land in B\u0027s favour on 5th\r\nDecember, 1916 but the deed was not registered. On 6th December, 1916, A\r\nexecuted another sale\u0026#8209;deed of the same land in C\u0027s favour and the deed\r\nwas followed by registration the same day. A refused to have the sale\u0026#8209;deed\r\nin B\u0027s favour registered. B thereupon applied to the Registrar for compulsory\r\nregistration under section 73 of the Registration Act, who referred the matter\r\nfor inquiry to the Sub\u0026#8209;Divisional Officer and on receipt of the latter\u0027s\r\nreport directed the deed to be registered in B\u0027s favour under section 75 of the\r\nRegistration Act.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eHeld, (1) that the registration\r\nof B\u0027s deed was not rendered invalid by reason of the Registrar delegating the\r\nholding of the inquiry to another person (P.10, Col. 1).\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(2) That the sale\u0026#8209;deed in\r\nB\u0027s favour took effect under section 47 of the Registration Act from the date\r\nof its execution and must prevail against the sale deed in C\u0027s favour,\r\nnotwithstanding the latter\u0027s earlier registration (P.100 Col. l).\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn 192 IC 812.it is held that\r\n\u0026quot;One S sold a piece of land under sale\u0026#8209;deed on August 7, 1934 to D\r\nbut the sale\u0026#8209;deed was registered on February 26, 1935 On August 17, 1934\r\nS again sold the same land to P under a registered sale\u0026#8209;deed of that date\r\nand P entered into possession but was dispossessed by D. In P\u0027s suit for\r\npossession:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eHeld, that according to section\r\n47, Registration Act the sale\u0026#8209;deed in favour of D operated immediately\r\nafter its registration not from the date of registration but from the date of\r\nits execution, namely August 7, 1934, and hence D had a good title by sale and\r\nsubsequent sale to D did not give him any title, section 54, Transfer of\r\nProperty Act did not affect the position as sale to D was made by a registered\r\ninstrument, though registration actually took place after the date of the sale\u0026#8209;deed\r\nto P and its registration. The sale to P was always subject to the sale to the\r\nD being perfected by registration in which case nothing would pass to the P at\r\nall. 174 Ind. Cas. 378(1) referred to.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe said interpretation of\r\nsection 47 enables an unscruplous vendor to sell the property twice and, even\r\nmany times more, with impunity and defraud the subsequent purchasers, who\r\nwithout being in a position to know the earlier execution of sale\u0026#8209;deed,\r\npurchase the property in good faith and for consideration.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eOne question which has remained\r\nunattended to in the judicial precedents, dealing with above\u0026#8209;cited\r\nsituation, is that how it is possible that there may be two or more registered\r\nsale\u0026#8209;deeds by a vendor in respect of the same property, \u0027\u0027When one sale\u0026#8209;deed\r\nhas been registered then the title in the property stands transferred to the\r\nvendee. The vendor is left with no title in the property to get it transferred\r\nover again to another person. No law permits the multiple registration of sale\u0026#8209;deeds\r\nin respect of the same property. What rule the Courts would have followed if\r\nthey had considered the impossibility of existence of two or more registered\r\nsale\u0026#8209;deeds in respect of the same property by the same vendor, it is\r\ndifficult to imagine.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eHowever, section 78 of Transfer\r\nof Property Act, 1882 has been enacted to check fraud on the part of first\r\nmortgagee, who through fraud misrepresentation or gross neglect, has not got\r\nits mortgage deed registered, and has induced subsequent mortgagee to advance\r\nloan on the security covered by first unregistered mortgage deed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eGoing by the reigning consistent\r\ninterpretation of Courts of section 47 in the case of multiple sales of the\r\nsame property, the said section has become a convenient means of playing fraud\r\non innocent purchasers. The fraud may assume two shapes, one, where the vendor\r\nconcealing the execution of sale\u0026#8209;deed in favour of first purchaser, sells\r\naway the same property to another vendee and gets the sale\u0026#8209;deed\r\nregistered in favour of the subsequent purchaser, and later on gets the first\r\nsale\u0026#8209;deed also registered. In this way he dupes both the purchasers. Two,\r\nwhen the vendor in collusion with a person, executes a fictitious sale\u0026#8209;deed\r\nin his favour and then sells away the property to another, in the same manner\r\nas is covered by first situation, and in this way he dupes the subsequent\r\npurchaser. \u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSection 47 has also been\r\nmanipulated to defeat rights of third parties in pre\u0026#8209;emption suits.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSection 21\u0026#8209;A of Punjab Pre\u0026#8209;emption\r\nAct, 1913, couched as it was in negative form, prohibited any improvement\r\notherwise through inheritance or succession, to be made in the status of a\r\nvendee\u0026#8209;defendant after the institution of a suit for pre\u0026#8209;emption\r\nand was not to affect the right of the pre\u0026#8209;emptor/plaintiff in such suit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eApplying the above\u0026#8209;quoted\r\nrule of interpretation of section 47, in 1992 SCMR 2300 and 1994 MLD 1390, a\r\ndocument executed before the institution of suit of pre\u0026#8209;emption in favour\r\nof vendee\u0026#8209;defendant but registered after the institution of the suit, was\r\nheld to have improved the status of vendee -defendant before the institution of\r\nsuit and the plaintiff\u0027s suit was dismissed.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn the above\u0026#8209;stated facts\r\nthe pre\u0026#8209;emptor having got no knowledge about the execution of document in\r\nfavour of defendant creating a title, equal or superior to that of the pre\u0026#8209;emptor,\r\nhas been prompted to file suit for pre\u0026#8209;emption on the \u0027basis of\r\nsuperiority of his claim, by reference to facts obtaining at the time of\r\ninstitution of suit. Even if he had known the execution of document in favour\r\nof vendee, he could not be sure that it would have been eventually got\r\nregistered.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eSimilar position can prevail in\r\nrespect of pre\u0026#8209;emption suit filed under Punjab Pre\u0026#8209;emption Act,\r\n1991.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn the presence of section, 49\r\nthere is no need of section 47, which instead of serving any positive\r\nbeneficial end has become a source of fraud. Let the Legislature take notice of\r\nthe plea for deletion of section 47 in order to relieve the people of being\r\nsubjected to fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"