Pre-emption and registration: a transfer becomes effective on completed registration, and failure to prove prompt talab defeats the claim.

For third-party rights under pre-emption, a compulsorily registrable transfer became operative only when registration was completed, not on part payment, delivery of possession, presentation, or execution of the deed; the relevant sale date was therefore the date of completed registration. The plaintiff also failed to establish prompt performance of the talab, as the court rejected the account that knowledge of the sale arose only on the later date and treated the alleged demand as not genuine. Because promptness was not proved, the pre-emption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) When did the sale become operative for the purpose of pre-emption, and (ii) whether the plaintiff proved prompt performance of the talab so as to sustain the right of pre-emption.

Issue (i): When did the sale become operative for the purpose of pre-emption?

Analysis: The sale could not be treated as complete merely on part payment and delivery of possession. For the purpose of third parties, the transfer became effective only when the deed was registered. Registration was treated as complete when the certificate of registration was made, since the substantial statutory acts necessary to registration had then been performed. On that basis, the relevant date of sale was the date on which registration was completed, not the earlier date of presentation or execution.

Conclusion: The sale became operative on 3 September.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved prompt performance of the talab so as to sustain the right of pre-emption.

Analysis: The plaintiff's account that he learnt of the sale only on 4 September and made immediate demand was rejected as false. The finding below was that he must have known of the registration earlier and that the alleged prompt talab was stage-managed. The question turned on findings of fact, and the absence of promptness defeated the claim.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove prompt performance of the talab, and the claim for pre-emption failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed because the sale was treated as completed only upon registration, but the plaintiff's want of promptness in making the pre-emptive demand was fatal to the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of third-party rights under pre-emption, a compulsorily registrable transfer becomes effective when registration is completed, and a pre-emption claim fails if prompt performance of the talab is not proved.

---