Registration of a Document Relates Back to the Date when it was Executed

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Section 47 of The Registration Act, 1908 reads thus: “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.”

Legal effect of Section 47 Registration Act

The Constitution Bench in Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer, AIR 1961 SC 1747 considered Section 47 of The Registration Act and observed to the following effect:

• A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been made. That is, it has nothing to do with the completion of the registration.
• It applies to a document only after it has been registered.
• In the same way it has nothing to do with the completion of the registration, it has nothing to do with the completion of a sale when the instrument is one of sale.
• A sale which is admittedly not completed until the registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed earlier.

The Supreme Court held as under:

• “8. We do not think that the learned Attorney-General’s contention is well founded. We will assume that the learned Attorney-General’s construction of the instrument of sale that the property was intended to pass under it on the date of the instrument is correct. Section 47 of the Registration Act does not, however, say when a sale would be deemed to be complete. It only permits a document when registered, to operate from a certain date which may be earlier than the date when it was registered. The object of this section is to decide which of two or more registered instruments in respect of the same property is to have effect. The section applies to a document only after it has been registered. It has nothing to do with the completion of the registration and therefore nothing to do with the completion of a sale when the instrument is one of sale. A sale which is admittedly not completed until the registration of the instrument of sale is completed, cannot be said to have been completed earlier because by virtue of Section 47 the instrument by which it is effected, after it has been registered, commences to operate from an earlier date. Therefore we do not think that the sale in this case can be said, in view of Section 47, to have been completed on January 31, 1946. The view that we have taken of Section 47 of the Registration Act seems to have been taken in Tilakdhari Singh vs. Gour Narain, AIR 1921 Pat. 150. We believe that the same view was expressed in Nareshchandra Datta vs. Gireeshchandra Das, (1935) ILR 62 Cal. 979 and Gobardhan Bar vs. Guna Dhar Bar, ILR (1940) II Cal. 270.”

In Kanwar Raj Singh v.  Gejo, AIR 2024 SC 238; 2024-2 SCC 416, it is observed as under:

• “6. On plain reading of Section 47, it provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof was required. Thus, when a compulsorily registerable document is registered according to the Registration Act, it can operate from a date before the date of its registration. The date of the operation will depend on the nature of the transaction. If, in a given case, a sale deed is executed and the entire agreed consideration is paid on or before execution of the sale deed, after it is registered, it will operate from the date of its execution. The reason is that if its registration was not required, it would have operated from the date of its execution.”

In Vasudha Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority, 215 (2014) DLT 711, it is pointed out as under:

• “Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, clearly lays down that a document which is required to be registered must be done so within a period of four months.
• Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, lays down that once the registration of a document takes place, it relates back to the date when the document was executed meaning thereby that in the instant case, although the document was registered on 13.10.2011, but it could not be said that the document became operative only on 03.10.2011. On the contrary, a combined reading of the aforesaid two sections will clearly show that not only the executants of a document is given four months time to get the document registered with the Sub Registrar but also that once the said document is registered, it relates back to the date when the same was executed.”

Read Also:

• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney is Sufficient for Registration of a Deed
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed?
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• ‘Once Admitted, Always Admitted’ – Stamp Act Theory Explored in G. M.  Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde, AIR 2024 SC 3339
• Should Execution of a Will be ‘Proved’, Even When it is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side?
• Time to Object Marking Documents – Should it While Exhibiting; Failure, Amounts to Waiver
• Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?
• PROOF OF DOCUMENTS & OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY – How & When?
• Law on PRODUCTION, ADMISSIBILITY & PROOF OF DOCUMENTS – in a Nutshell
• Marking Documents: Should Objection be Raised Strictly When they are Marked; Is it Sufficient to Challenge them during Cross-Examination?
• Marking Secondary Evidence Without Objection: Two Apparently Divergent Views on Waiver and the Mode of Proof of Documents
• Marking Documents: Should Objection be Raised Strictly When they are Marked; Is it Sufficient to Challenge them during Cross-Examination?
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• What is Torrens System and Torrens Plan in Registration of Deeds and Documents
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, if Witness Admits Them?
• How to Prove a Will in Court? When can Presumptions be relied on for Proof of a Will?
• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumption on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
• ‘Title & Ownership’, and ‘Possessory Title’, in Indian Law
• Survey Plan and Area Calculation: A Cursory Look
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Prevail Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Corroboration, Refreshing Memory and Contradicting Witnesses
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses and in Argument
• 30 Years Old Documents- No ‘Absolute’ Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Modes of Proof of Documents – Admission, Direct Evidence, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is Illegal
• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
• Is Registration of a Deed, Notice to Government and Public so as to Attract Adverse Possession?
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney is Sufficient for Registration of a Deed
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; When ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right Protected in Indian Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• ‘Possession is Good Against All But the True Owner’
• Vesting of Property in Trusts
• Ultimate Ownership of All Properties Vests in the State. It is an Incident of Sovereignty, and the Government is the Paramount Title Holder also.
• Survey and Revenue Authorities Do Not Decide TITLE
• Survey Records under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption of Correctness on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• Can Transfer of Registry or Mutation and Payment of Tax be Denied, pointing out Revenue Recovery, Attachment or Bank Loan?
• Revenue Settlements and Settlement Registers of Travancore, Cochin and Malabar
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Plaint will not Disentitle a Decree
• Venkatesha v. KM Venkatamuniyappa: A Rectification Deed Cannot, in the Guise of Correcting an Error, Substitute the Very Subject Matter
• In a Suit for Fixation of Boundary, Property of the Defendant Need Not be Scheduled
• Admissibility, Substantive Evidence and Probative Value – General Principles
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Substantial and Auxiliary Documents Used in Evidence
• Courts to Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS’ in Appreciation of Evidence
• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Substantial and Auxiliary Documents Used in Evidence