Judgement JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal from the decree of the Assistant District Judge (2) Cachar passed in Title Appeal No. 133 of 1982 partly allowing the appeal from the decree passed by the Munsiff (1) Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 75 of 1979. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are thus. One K was owner of the land measuring 11 B 7 K 6 Ch in area covered by Second RS Patta No. 118 and 121. After the death of K, his widow M and his daughter A inherited the land. B is husband of A. I is the adopted son of R and A, and the plaintiff F is the wife of I. During her lifetime, M gifted 4 B 17 K of land to B under a. registered deed dated 15-5-49 (Ext.-4). Out of 4 B 17 K of land, B sold 2 B 8 K 8 Ch of land to the plaintiff F under a registered deed dated 18-4-77 (Ext.-1). On the death of M, her daughter A inherited whatever M left in her share. After various transactions, at the relevant time F was the owner of 1 B 4 K. 4 Ch of land, and I was the owner of 8 B 18 K 14 Ch of land out of 11 B 17 K 6 Ch of land left by K. Out of his land, I sold 8 B 10 K of land to plaintiff F under the deed (Ext.-2) executed on 13-9-78 but registered on 22-11-78. I again sold 4 B 17 K of land, out of the land sold to F to A under deed (Ext.-D) executed on 19-9-78 and registered on the same day, viz., 19-9-78. Thereafter, A, who is defendant-20, sold 3 B 12 K 12 Ch of land to defendants-1 and l0 under three different registered sale deeds. The plaintiff claims 9 B 14 K 4 Ch of land. But, out of 9 B 14 K 4 Ch the dispute is in respect of 4 B 17 K of land which was purchased by A from I under Ext. -D. The trial Court decreed the suit. The plaintiff claims 9 B 14 K 4 Ch of land. But, out of 9 B 14 K 4 Ch the dispute is in respect of 4 B 17 K of land which was purchased by A from I under Ext. -D. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal by the contesting defendants-1, 10 and 20, the lower appellate Court declared the right, title and interest of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land excluding the land covered by deed Ext.-D modifying the decree by holding that Ext.-D was registered earlier in point of time. 3. Mr. B. L. Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that by virtue of Section 47 of the Registration Act when the sale deed Ext.-2 was registered it commenced to operate from 13-9-78, the date of execu-tion, although it was registered on 22-11-78, and therefore, Ext.-2 would prevail over Ext.-D which was executed on 19-9-78. Mr. B. K. Acharyya, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the registra-tion of sale under Ext.-2 was completed on 22-11-78 under Section 61 of the Act, but before the completion of registration of sale, I executed the deed of sale (Ext.-D) on 19-9-78 and registered on 19-9-78, and as such, the sale of the land under Ext.-D shall not be affected by Ext.-2. 4. It is a case of competition between two registered sale deeds, one (Ext.-2) executed on 13-9-78 but registered on 22-11-78 and the other (Ext.-D) executed on 19-9-78 and registered on the same day under Section 61 of the Act, the registration is not complete till the document to be registered has been copied out in the records of the Registration Office, i.e., when a sale is made by a registered instrument it becomes complete only on the instrument of sale being copied in the books of Registration Office. But Section 47 of the Act provides: "A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have com-menced to operate it on registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration." (Emphasis supplied.) On reading Section 47, it is clear that once a sale deed is registered it would operate from the time from which it would have com-menced to operate if no registration thereof is required or made, and not from the time of its registration. Section 47 does not say when the sale would be complete. It only permits a document when registered to operate from a certain date which may be earlier than the date when it was registered. The object of Section 47 is to decide which of the two or more registered instruments in respect of the same property is to have effect. Section 47 has nothing to do with the completion of regis-tration and, therefore, nothing to do with the completion of a sale when the instrument is one of sale. For the reasons stated above, on the registration of the sale deeds, Ext.-2 and Ext.-D, they would operate from their res-pective dates of execution, that is to say - Ext.-1 will operate from 15-9-78, and Ext.-D would operate from 19-9-78. In that view of the matter, Ext.-2 will prevail over Ext.-D. For these reasons, the three contesting de-fendants shall have no right to the land in dispute and, therefore, the decree of the lower appellate Court is to be set aside. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the Assistant District Judge (2), Cachar passed in Title Suit No. 135 of 1982 is set aside, and the decree of the Munsiff (I), Hailakandi passed in Title Suit No. 75 of 1979 is recorded. No costs. Appeal allowed.