JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows :- On 7th February, 1963, one Bhagwan Dass executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner Ramadhar on a consideration of Rs.1500/-. Rs.l000/-were paid by Ramadhar and it was agreed upon that the balance amount of Rs. 500/-would be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. On 8th February, 1963, Bhagwan Dass executed another sale deed in favour of Muneshwar and others. This sale deed was registered on that very day. The sale deed in favour of Ramadhar was registered on 15th February, 1963 after Bhagwan Dass took the balance amount of Rs. 500/-. Muneshwar filed a suit under section 229-B read with Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1952 for a declaration that by virtue of the sale deed in his favour executed and registered on 8th February, 1963, he became the Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It was alleged in the said suit that the sale deed executed on 7th February, 1963 in favour of Ramadhar had no effect as it was registered subsequently on 15th February, 1963. The Assistant Collector, Varanasi dismissed the suit. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner upheld the judgment of the trial court by his judgment dated 27th May, 1969. Muneshwar thereafter filed second appeal in the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 5th August, 1975 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the two courts below and decreed the suit filed by Muneshwar. The effect was that the sale deed in favour of Muneshwar was upheld by the Board of Revenue while the sale deed executed in favour of Ramadhar was nullified. Ramadhar filed the present petition in this court challenging the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 5th August, 1975. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The effect was that the sale deed in favour of Muneshwar was upheld by the Board of Revenue while the sale deed executed in favour of Ramadhar was nullified. Ramadhar filed the present petition in this court challenging the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 5th August, 1975. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the facts found by the court below, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was valid in law and that in view of section 47 of the Registration Act, since the sale deed was effective from the date of its execution, his was a prior sale deed and as such the sale deed executed in favour of Muneshwar on 8th February, 1963 was not valid in law and could not confer any title on Muneshwar on the basis of the said sale deed. 3. It has been found by all the three courts below that the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 7th February, 1963. The said sale deed was registered on 15th February, 1963. The sale deed in favour of Muneshwar was executed on 8th February, 1963 and was registered on the same date, namely 8th February, 1963. It has not been found that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was obtained by fraud or ante dated. It has also not been found that no consideration passed on the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 7th February, 1963. It has been held that the sale deed was validly executed on 7th February, 1963. The sole question therefore, remains to be determined in this case is that as to what is the effect of the sale deed executed earlier but registered subsequently and meanwhile another sale deed is registered in respect of the same property. 4. In Gayatri Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1973 AWR 606 a Division Bench of this court had an occasion to consider this very question. The Bench held that if a sale deed was executed earlier but registered subsequently, then by virtue of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, the title would be deemed to be transferred with effect from the date of the execution of the sale deed. The Bench held that if a sale deed was executed earlier but registered subsequently, then by virtue of Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, the title would be deemed to be transferred with effect from the date of the execution of the sale deed. It has further been held that out of the two completed sale deeds the one which is earlier takes priority after registration. The facts in the case of Gayatri Prasad (supra) are identical to the facts in the present case. The principle laid down in Gayatri Prasad case is fully applicable in the present case and it clearly supports the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Jangi v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1981 Alld. 191 a learned Single Judge of this court on similar facts after considering the effect of Gayatri Prasad case (supra) has taken the view that if a sale deed had been executed earlier and thereafter registered, it shall operate from the date of the execution of the sale deed. This case also supports the contention raised by the petitioner. I agree with the decision in Jangi's case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, relied upon certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Kamsaran v. Domani Kuer, AIR 1961 SC 1747 . The point which was considered by the Supreme Court in this case was as to when the sale would be deemed to be completed. This question was considered as the rights of the parties depended upon the determination of the question as to when the sale deed would be deemed to be completed. In the light of this question, the Supreme Court considered various provisions of the Registration Act and came to the conclusion that the sale deed would be deemed to be completed when the document to be registered has been copied out in the records of the registration office as provided in Section 61 of the Registration Act. 6. It has been observed by the Supreme Court as follows : "We will assume that the learned Attorney General 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 completed. It only permits a document when registered to operate from 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 of sale." In the present petition, the question is as to what is the effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act where two registered sale deeds exist in respect of the same property has not been considered. The principle of law stated by the Supreme Court is not contrary to that laid down in Gayatri Prasad case (supra). 7. In view of the above, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. I accordingly allow the petition, quash the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 5-8-75 and restore that of the trial court dated 23-1-1967 as confirmed by the appellate it is further directed that any amount deposited by virtue of the stay order dated 12th September, 1975 confirmed on 6th January, 1976 shall be refunded to the petitioner on his making proper application before the court in which the amount had been deposited. 8. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.