Judgment :- 1. Second defendant is the appellant. Plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession on the strength of his title was decreed by the trial Court and it has been confirmed by the lower appellate Court. 2. Plaintiff claims title to the property as per a sale deed executed by Devassy, son of the first defendant and brother of the second defendant. Wife and father-in-law of Devassy were impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that Devassy had executed the sale deed in his favour on 31-1-1975 giving him possession of the property, that 4th defendant had filed a suit against Devassy and obtained injunction, that the defendants trespassed upon the suit property, that they have no manner of right to do so and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit property with mesne profits. 3. Second defendant (appellant) filed written statement stating that he is a tenant of item No.1 property having obtained the same on lease from his father in 1960 and that he had obtained assignment of leasehold right of item No.2 in 1965. He denied plaintiffs claim that he obtained possession of the property from Devassy. Another contention of the second defendant is that on the strength of an unregistered sale deed (Ext.A-1) plaintiff cannot recover possession of the property and subsequent registration cannot salvage the position. 4. Admittedly, Ext.A-1 was not registered on the date of suit. It could not be registered in view of the injunction order in another suit from the Munsiff Court. Plaintiff later presented the document for compulsory registration and it was accordingly registered. The District Registrar recorded the evidence of the attesting witnesses and found that the document was really executed by Devassy and accordingly ordered registration. 5. Contention of the 4th defendant is that as Ext.A-1 was not registered on the date of suit plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit on the strength of that document and the subsequent registration will not validate it. The argument ignores S.47 of the Registration Act. S.47 provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. The argument ignores S.47 of the Registration Act. S.47 provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. The mere fact of the execution of a sale-deed does not make it operative unless it is registered; but by reason of S.47 of the Act once the registration has been effected the sale deed becomes operative retrospectively from the date of execution. In this context impact of S.49 has also to be considered. S.49 consists of two parts. Firstly, it provides that no document required by S.17 or by any provision of the Transfer of property Act to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein unless it has been registered. The second part of the section says that a document shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property i.e. the immovable property comprised there in unless it has been registered. The cumulative effect of S.47 and 49 is that a document which is compulsorily registerable does not affect any immovable property comprised therein till it has been registered, but as soon as it has been registered it takes effect not from the date of registration but retrospectively from the date of its execution. 6. In Ram Narain Chaube v. Basdeo Misra (AIR 1934 Allahabad 70) a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held: "No doubt according to S.49 no document required by S.17 to be registered shall affect any immovable property, unless it has been registered, but once registration is effected S.49 no longer applies and S.47 begins to apply." As Ext.A-1 has been subsequently registered plaintiff is certainly entitled to rely on that document as his title deed to recover the property from the defendants. Merely because Ext.A-1 was an unregistered sale deed on the date of suit the effect of subsequent registration cannot deprived to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession on the strength of Ext.A-1 title deed in his favour. 7. The lower appellate Court held that absence of any claim for tenancy right or reservation in favour of the second defendant in the partition deed, virtually concludes the matter against him. Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession on the strength of Ext.A-1 title deed in his favour. 7. The lower appellate Court held that absence of any claim for tenancy right or reservation in favour of the second defendant in the partition deed, virtually concludes the matter against him. As there is no evidence of tenancy pleaded by the second defendant the concurrent findings of the courts below do not warrant interference by this Court in the Second Appeal. There is no merit in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Dismissed.