JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The defendant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below whereby the suit for possession filed by Narain Singh, plaintiff was decreed. 2. One Bhan Singh was the owner of land measuring 42 kanals 4 marlas. He effected various sale deeds since the year 1971 to different persons. Vide sale deed dated 2.4.1975, Bhan Singh sold his 2/3rd share to Suhel Singh and 1/3rd share to Jalwant Singh. Suhel Singh sold his share of land to Narain Singh, plaintiff on 10.4.1980. 3. The sale in favour of the plaintiff and in favour of Suhel Singh and Jalwant Singh was not reflected in the revenue record. Consequently, in partition proceedings, Bhan Singh was allotted a separate parcel of land measuring 8 kanals 1 marla which was sold by Bhan Singh on 9.10.1989 vide sale deed Ex. D1 to the present appellant. The learned trial Court held that Bhan Singh had executed sale deeds dated 2.4.1975 and 10.4.1980 but the defendant is bona fide purchaser from Bhan Singh. 4. The first appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court. It held that occurrence of name of Bhan Singh in revenue record does not confer any title in the suit land in Bhan Singh, who was already divested of his rights in the suit land. It found that vide sale dated 2.4.1975, Bhan Singh has sold his entire share in the land. The first appellate Court also found that appellant is not bona fide purchaser, as it is not proved that appellant made any discrete inquiry to find out the sales effected by Bhan Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser for value and consideration as he has purchased the property on the basis of revenue record existing in the name of Bhan Singh, wherein he was reflected as owner. However, finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below that Bhan Singh sold his entire holding with the sale deed dated 2.4.1975. Taking advantage of entries in the revenue record, he effected another sale in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. 6. The said findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The sale in favour of the plaintiff is by registered document. Taking advantage of entries in the revenue record, he effected another sale in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. 6. The said findings of fact recorded by the first appellate Court do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. The sale in favour of the plaintiff is by registered document. The registration of a document is constructive evidence for us as held by Honble Supreme Court in 1999 SC 2171: "41. Under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, "a person is deemed to have notice" of a fact when he actually known that fact or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it." The explanation I thereto says : "Where any transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part of it, or share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration..." 42. Inasmuch as the rectification deed is a registered deed, it is deemed to be notice to the Builder in view of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. 43. Once notice is there, actual as well as constructive, a plea of bona fide purchaser without notice of rights of Lokram Group is not permissible...." 7. The parties are also residing in the same village. Such transactions of sale are known to the inhabitants of the same village. There is presumption to this effect as held by Supreme Court in Dr. Govinddas and another v. Shrimati Shantibai and others, 1972 PLR 227. Thus, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for the consideration of this Court. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.