S. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeals directed against the judgment and decree dated March 30, 1990 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge at Tamluk in Title Appeal No. 46 of 1988 affirming those dated April 9, 1998 passed by the learned Munsif, Third Court at Tamluk in Title Suit No. 215 of 1985. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff/appellant instituted Title suit No. 215 of 1985 for declaration of his title upon, further, declaration that the kobala dated June 28, 1985 executed by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1 was fabricated, fraudulent, antedated, illegal, invalid and without consideration. The plaintiff, also, prayed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No. 1 from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It is contended in the plaint that the suit properties originally belonged to Bishnupada Bera, the defendant No. 2. The said Bishnupada Bera on August 12, 1985 conveyed the suit properties at a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only; the sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 2 at the time of writing of the Deed and the balance sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only was paid before the Sub-Registrar concerned, who made an endorsement in this respect on the Deed. However, on Ashwin 27, 1392 B. S. the defendant No. 1 denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit lands. The plaintiff, thereafter, made enquiries and obtained a certified copy of the Deed dated August 26, 1985, which was however, registered on September 30, 1985. It appeared from the said certified copy of the said Deed that fraudulently the date of execution of the Deed was entered as Ashwar 20, 1392 B. S. corresponding to June 28, 1985 in order to defraud the plaintiff. As the defendant No. 2 transferred his right, title, interest and possession over the suit property before execution of the Deed on September 30, 1985 by virtue of the Deed dated August 12, 1985 in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants No. 1 acquired no title over the suit property by virtue of the said antedated, collusive and fraudulent Deed. ( 3 ) ONLY the defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement. ( 3 ) ONLY the defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement. It has been contended that the defendant No. 2 sold the suit property on July 5, 1985, corresponding to Ashwar 20, 1392 B. S. , at a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees four thousand) only, but the document was registered subsequently as the defendant No. 2 took some time for presenting the document for registration It is contended that the Deed dated August 12, 1985 standing in name of the plaintiff was not binding on the said defendant No. 1, and as such the plaintiff purchased the suit properties after purchase by the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff did not acquire any title whatsoever. ( 4 ) THE defendant No. 2 did not come forward to contest the suit. During the pendency of this litigation, however, the defendant No. 2 expired and his heirs and legal representatives have been substituted in the proceeding. ( 5 ) BY the judgment and decree dated April 9, 1988 the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the Deed of the defendant No. 1 was an antedated document and that the defendant No. 2 executed the same after execution of the Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Since both the said registered documents were in respect of the same properties, the Deed, which was executed earlier, and, in favour of the defendant No. 1 should prevail over the Deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff being aggrieved preferred an appeal, which was ultimately registered as Title Appeal No. 46 of 1988 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge at Tamluk. The learned District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree dated March 30, 1990 dismissed the appeal. While affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge, the learned trial judge, in the lower appellate Court came to the following findings of fact: (1) The defendant No. , Bishnupada Bera, executed a registered kobala (exhibit 1) in respect of 8 decimals of land in plots Nos. 1604, 1605 and 1606 of Mouza: Kodalia in favour of the plaintiff on August 12, 1985 and the said document was registered on the same date. 1604, 1605 and 1606 of Mouza: Kodalia in favour of the plaintiff on August 12, 1985 and the said document was registered on the same date. (2) The said Bishnupada Bera executed another registered Kobala on July 5, 1985 in respect of the self same properties in favour of the defendant No. 1, Bijay Kumar Bera, But the said document was registered on September 30, 1985. (3) The plaintiff has failed to prove that the kobala dated July 5, 1985, registered on September 30, 1985, being exhibit A, was antedated. , The plaintiff has failed to discharge his burden to prove that the said exhibit A was antedated, collusive and without consideration. As the plaintiff has failed to discharge his duties and as he failed to prove his allegations, the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration of title and permanent injunction. (4) The defendant No. 1 has been able to supply reasonable explanations for the delay in registration of the Deed as it was established that the defendant No. 2 was ill at the relevant point of time. The circumstances could raise suspicion only, but the circumstances were not sufficient to establish the allegation of the plaintiff that the kobala, exhibit A, was antedated. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, there is as finding of fact that the defendant No. 2 executed a kobala dated July 5, 1982, corresponding to Ashwar 20, 1392 B. S. , in respect of suit properties in favour of the defendant No. 1, which was however, registered on September 30, 1985 and that the defendant No. 2 again executed a kobala in respect of suit properties in favour of the plaintiff on August 12, 1985, which, however, was registered on the same date. ( 8 ) SECTION 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, in a way, gives retrospective effect to a document after it has been duly registered. The effect of registration is that a document after registration becomes effective and comes into operation from the date of its execution. In view of the clear finding of fact and the language of the Registration Act, 1908, the kobala of the defendant No. 1 being exhibit A must prevail over the kobala of the plaintiff being exhibit 1. The effect of registration is that a document after registration becomes effective and comes into operation from the date of its execution. In view of the clear finding of fact and the language of the Registration Act, 1908, the kobala of the defendant No. 1 being exhibit A must prevail over the kobala of the plaintiff being exhibit 1. ( 9 ) I concur with the findings of fact that the plaintiff has not acquired any right, title, and interest over the suit properties by virtue of the kobala dated August 1985 as the same was executed by the defendant No. 2 after execution of the kobala dated July 5, 1985 by the defendant No. 2 in favour of the defendant No. 1. ( 10 ) STILL, in my view, after hearing Mr. Nirmal Kumar Ghosal, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, learned senior advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 1, this appeal involves the following substantial question of law: whether in view of the clear findings of fact that the defendant No. 2 had no title on the date on which he executed the kobala in favour of the plaintiff as he has already transferred his right, title land interest in respect of the properties covered by the said kobala in favour of the defendant No. 1, the Courts below were justified in refusing any relief in favour of the plaintiff at least against the defendant No. 2? ( 11 ) IT is settled law that relief granted to the plaintiff should not be of entirely different description from the relief claimed in the plaint as the choice of the relief is with the plaintiff, who is dominus litis in a litigation. The discretion is still rested in the Court to grant appropriate relief keeping in view the rights claimed and the circumstances attending. Not only the Court is having inherent power to grant appropriate and alternative relief though not specifically asked for, but it is also, the duty of the Court to grant such relief in the circumstances of the case. The Court has to look to the substance of the claim in determining the relief to be granted to the party. Not only the Court is having inherent power to grant appropriate and alternative relief though not specifically asked for, but it is also, the duty of the Court to grant such relief in the circumstances of the case. The Court has to look to the substance of the claim in determining the relief to be granted to the party. The primary duty of the Court is to do justice and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court to grant relief as the circumstances of the case demand even though it may not be asked for. The power of the Courts to grant the just and proper relief to a party, even without his asking specifically, is very much recognised by the Code of Civil Procedure particularly, in Order 7 of the said Code. ( 12 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinanath Sarma Kataki v. Gour Nath Sarma Kataki and Ors. reported in AIR 1925 Calcutta 434 observed as under: ?it appears to me that when a Court is able to discover, as in this case an equitable relief to which the party is entitled it would be well advise to allow the plaintiff, where the defendant had been so obviously in default to take advantage of any such equitable relief to which he is entitled under the law, and if necessary, to treat his pleadings as amended for that purpose. At most it would be a matter where the defendant ought to be compensated in costs, for he could have no grievance except that he might possibly not have come to Court had the offer been made before the commencement of the litigation? ( 13 ) IN the case in hand it is clear that the defendant No. 2 fraudulently executed the Deed in favour of the plaintiff knowingly that he had already executed a Deed in respect of self same properties in favour of the defendant No. 1 and, accordingly, the defendant No. 2 was not entitled to enjoy the consideration money obtained from the plaintiff in consideration of the execution of the kobala in favour of the plaintiff. . The kobala of the plaintiff reveals that the plaintiff has paid sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only before the registration of the document to the defendant No. 2. . The kobala of the plaintiff reveals that the plaintiff has paid sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only before the registration of the document to the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2, in my view, was, therefore, liable to refund the entire consideration money to the plaintiff with interest as he could not convey the title in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 was not entitled to enjoy the said sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only obtained from the plaintiff as the consideration of the kobala executed by him in favour of the plaintiff as he failed to convey any title in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. The facts, revealed at the trial, demands that the plaintiff should get the relief of refund of the said sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only from the defendant No. 2 with interest accrued thereon from the date of the kobala till the date of refund and such relief is not inconsistent with the plaintiff's case as there are sufficient materials on record to establish that the defendant No. 2 had no competence to execute the kobala in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot lose both the properties and the money. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY the judgment and decree by the Courts below are set aside. Title Suit No. 215 of 1985 is decreed in part. The defendant No. 2 series are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only with interest at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from August 12, 1985 till the payment of the said amount of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 series are directed to make the payment, as decreed hereinabove, within to months from this date, failing which it will be open to the plaintiff to realise the said sum by putting the decree in to execution. The appeal is, thus, allowed in part without, however, any order as to costs. Xerox certified copy of this judgment and decree, if applies for, are to be supplied within seven days from the date of making requisition for the same. Appeal allowed