Pre-emption and registered sale deeds: sale completes on registration, so a demand made earlier is premature and ineffective.

For pre-emption, a sale of immovable property requiring a registered instrument is complete only when registration is completed, not when the deed is merely executed. The Court held that Section 47 of the Registration Act governs the operative effect of a registered document after registration, but does not advance the date of completion of the sale itself. A demand for pre-emption made before completion of registration was therefore premature and ineffective. The dissent considered the deed effective from execution, relying on the parties' intention and Section 47, but the majority view prevailed and the pre-emption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of enforcing a right of pre-emption, a sale of immovable property required to be effected by a registered instrument becomes complete on execution of the deed or only on completion of registration under the Registration Act, and whether the registered document relates back to the date of execution so as to make the pre-emption demand timely or premature.

Analysis: The majority held that a sale of immovable property of the requisite value under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is effected only by a registered instrument, and that the completion of registration under Section 61(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 marks completion of the registration process. Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 was held to govern the operative effect of a registered document once registered, but not the point of completion of the sale itself. The section was treated as dealing with the date from which the instrument operates, not with when the sale becomes complete for purposes of pre-emption. On this basis, the demand made before completion of registration was premature and could not support the claimed right of pre-emption. The dissenting opinion took the contrary view that the parties intended the sale deed to operate from the date of execution and that Section 47 should govern the time when the sale became complete, making the pre-emption demand valid.

Conclusion: The sale was held to be complete only upon completion of registration, and the pre-emption demand made earlier was ineffective; the appeal therefore failed.

Final Conclusion: The right of pre-emption could not be enforced because the requisite demand was not made after the sale had legally become complete under the registration law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sale of immovable property must be effected by a registered instrument, completion of registration, not the retrospective operation of the registered document under Section 47, determines when the sale becomes complete for the purpose of pre-emption.

Dissenting Opinion: Ayyangar, J. held that the intention expressed in the sale deed and the operation of Section 47 showed that the sale became effective on execution, so the talabs made on 2 February 1946 were timely and the appeal should have been allowed.

---