JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal u/s 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a first appeal by which the decree for eviction passed by the trial court was set aside but that in respect of rent for the period from 15-1-82 till December, 87 was upheld. The only point for decision in this appeal is, whether the decree for recovery of rent passed against the defendant-appellant is assailable. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there being an earlier agreement of sale, the right of the parties must date back to the date of agreement on subsequent execution of the sale deed. Reliance is placed on Section 47 of the Registration Act. We are unable to accept this contention. The only effect of Section 47 is to make a registered document operative from the date of its execution and not from any earlier date. In other words, the sale deed, if registered on a date subsequent to its execution would on registration operate or be effective from the earlier date of its execution and no more. 3. Learned counsel then contended that the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act should have been given to the appellant to relieve him of the obligation of payment of rent prior to the date of passing the decree by execution of the sale deed. This contention cannot also obviously be accepted. In a case like the present where transfer of title has taken place by execution of a registered sale deed as prescribed by law, there is no scope for the application of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act in this manner. 4. It was then urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decree when passed must date back to the date of the institution of the suit. Obviously, this cannot be accepted in a situation like the present where the question is of transfer of title in pursuance of a sale deed executed in accordance with the decree passed in the suit. It cannot be held that in such a suit also the sale deed when executed in accordance with the decree passed in the suit will date back to the date of filing of the suit. 5. It cannot be held that in such a suit also the sale deed when executed in accordance with the decree passed in the suit will date back to the date of filing of the suit. 5. Learned counsel also contended that sale consideration was offered by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff, which he did not accept and, therefore, in equity the defendant-appellant should have been relieved of the liability to pay rent. In our opinion, this factor cannot decide the appellant's liability to pay rent upto the date on which he acquired title by virtue of the sale deed executed in execution of the decree. Failure of the plaintiff to accept the sale consideration may be material for other purposes, but any offer made is not a matter for consideration in this appeal. 6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******