G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the original defen- dant-2 is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 30-11-1974 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chitradurga, in R. A. No. 2811971, on his file, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree, dated: 15-2-1971 passed by the Principal Munsiff, Chitradurga in O. S. No. 3011970, on his file decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, as prayed for. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF instituted a suit for declaration of his title that he became the owner of the suit property by virtue of a sale deed executed by the first defendant in the suit, on 25-4-1966 for a sum of Rs. 1,400. The sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub- registrar, Hosdurga on 18-8-1966. The sub-Registrar refused to register the; document as per his endorsement dated 26-12-1966. Thereafter plaintiff took up an appeal to the District Registrar, chitradurga and the District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale deed. Accordingly, the sale deed came to be registered on 27-9- 1968. In the meanwhile the first defendant purported to have sold the property in favour of the second defendant for Rs. 2,300 on 27-12-1967 and sot it registered on the same day. Thus according to the plaintiff, he became the owner of the suit property and he sought for possession of the property from the second defendant. ( 3 ) THE second defendant resisted the suit by filing his written statement. He contended that as he became the owner of the suit property earlier, the suit of the plaintiff was not tenable. The trial court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings. 1) Whether the plaintiff proves his title to the suit property? 2) Whether plaintiff proves 1hat defendant No. 2 had the knowledge of sale deed in his favour dated 25-4-1966? 3) Whether defendant No. 2 proves that the sale deed executed by the defendant No. 1 in his favour dated 27-12-1967 binds the plaintiff? 4) Whether the suit has no cause of action? 5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title sought? 6) Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of the schedule property? 7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits sought? 8) What order or decree? 4) Whether the suit has no cause of action? 5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title sought? 6) Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of the schedule property? 7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to future mesne profits sought? 8) What order or decree? ( 4 ) THE trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, answered all the material issues in favour of the plaintiff and in that view decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the second defendant went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Chitradurga in r. A. No. 2811971, on his file and the learned Civil Judge, in the course of his judgment raised the following points as arising for his consideration:1) Does plaintiff prove his title to the suit land as claimed by him? 2) Does defendant-2 prove his title erf the suit land as claimed by him? 3) Does plaintiff prove that it is the suit land which has been conveyed to him under his sale deed? 4) Out of the two sale deeds which of the sale deeds is legal and valid? 5) What order? ( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge, reassessing the evidence on record, answered points 1 to 3 in the affirmative. Under point No. 4 he held that the sale deed in favour of the second defendant was valid and in that view he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by th,e said judgment and decree, the second defendant has come up with the above second appeal before this Court. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel, Sri Chouta, appearing for the appellant, no doubt urged strenuously before me, that since the sale deed in favour of the second defendant was registered earlier, that transaction prevails over the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff as that is registered later. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel, Sri Chouta, appearing for the appellant, no doubt urged strenuously before me, that since the sale deed in favour of the second defendant was registered earlier, that transaction prevails over the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff as that is registered later. ( 7 ) AS against that the learned counsel, sri Shivaram, appearing for the respondent-plaintiff in the, appeal, supported the judgment and decree of the trial court, confirmed by the first appellate court, by submitting that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was presented much earlier for registration than the sale deed executed in favour of the second defendant and though the sale in favour of plaitiff came to be registered later by virtue of the order of the district Registrar, it should be taken to relate back to the date of the presentation of the deed for the purpose of determining the priority. ( 8 ) IT is no doubt true that there will be no transfer in the ownership of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 unless there is registration of the sale deed. But the facts of the present case reveal that the sale deed in favour of plaintiff was presented for registration much earlier. But the Sub-Registrar refused to register and the plaintiff had to take up the matter in appeal before the District Registrar, who directed the sub-Registrar to register the sale deed and thereafter it came to be registered. ( 9 ) IN the meanwhile, however, the first defendant purported to sell the suit property by another sale deed registered earlier in lavour of the second defendant. But S. 75 (3) of the Registration Act reads: - such registration shall take effect as if the document has been registered when it was first duly presented for registration. " therefore, it is obvious, that for all legal purposes, it shall be taken that the document in favour of the present plaintiff was registered on the date on which it was presented for registration i. e. , on 18-8-1966 itself. That being so, the document in favour of the plaintiff is deemed to have been registered earlier. That is what the Courts-below have held and I have no reasons to differ. That being so, the document in favour of the plaintiff is deemed to have been registered earlier. That is what the Courts-below have held and I have no reasons to differ. In fact it may be pointed out that this Court has taken the same view in the case of Azeezulla Sheriff alias Anwar Pasha v. Bhabhuthimul (1) in the result, therefore, I hold that that the appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed and I dismiss the same. No costs. --- *** --- .