JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal by the Plaintiff, in Title Suit No. 34/1988, is directed against the judgment of reversal dated 11th July, 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Title Appeal No. 4/1996 preferred by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20th August, 1996 (decree prepared on 10th October, 1996) passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (now Civil Judge), Hailakandi. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants , Yasin Ali Laskar, instituted Title Suit No. 34/1988 praying for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the land measuring 1 Bigha 10 Kothas 5 Chataks comprised in Dag No. 297 of Periodic Patta No. 66 under Mouza-Rangauti, Part-II (now in Ward No. 2 of Hailakandi(Town)in the district of Hailankandi, contending inter alia that on 22nd December, 1981 he transferred the said land in favour of the proforma Defendant No. 25, i.e. his son, by executing a registered deed of gift, who thereafter, transferred the same in favour of the Defendant No. 1 on 16th September, 1985 by a registered deed of sale. According to the Plaintiff, since there was a condition in the gift deed that the proforma Defendant No. 25 cannot sale it to any other person without offering him first, the sale of land by the proforma Defendant No. 25 in favour of the Defendant No. 1 is not valid. It is also the case of the Plaintiff as projected in the plaint that the Defendant No. 1 thereafter, on 15th June, 1987 executed the sale deed (Exhibit-1) transferring the right, title and interest of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff, which sale deed was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (in short, "the 1908 Act") on 3rd July, 1987. The further pleaded case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant No. l with a view to deprive the Plaintiff from enjoying the suit land, shown to have executed by 2(two) other deeds, both dated 26th May, 1987, which were registered on 11th September, 1987, transferring 13 Kathas 11 Chataks of land to each of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, totaling 1 Bighas 7 Kathas 15 Chataks. 2 and 3, totaling 1 Bighas 7 Kathas 15 Chataks. According to the Plaintiff, those sale deeds executed on 26th May, 1987 (Exhibits-21 and 22) are fraudulent, void, inoperative, those being antedated and having in fact executed after execution of the sale deed in 15th June 1987 (Exhibit-1) by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, therefore, apart from claiming a decree declaring the right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession in respect of the suit land, has also prayed for a declaration declaring that the sale deeds executed on 26th May, 1987(Exhibits-21 and 22) are void, inoperative and for cancellation thereof. 3. The Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the present appeal, on receipt of the summons entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statements. In the written statement filed by the Defendant No. 1, it has been pleaded that she acquired the right, title and interest over the suit land by virtue of the sale deed executed by proforma Defendant No. 25, i.e. her husband on 16th September, 1985 and thereafter, vide sale deeds executed on 26th May, 1987 (Exhibits-21 and 22), she transferred the land measuring 1 Bigha 7 Kathas 5 Chataks to the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and remaining 3 Kathas of land in favour of the Plaintiff by executing the sale deed on 15th June, 1987 (Exhibit-1). The Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in their joint written statement has also taken the same stand as has been taken by the Defendant No. 1 in her written statement. 4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for consideration and decision: 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether document dated 15.06.1987 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff is genuine or collusive? 4. Whether the documents executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant No. 2 & 3 are genuine or collusive? 5. Whether the documents of the parties actually bear the right, title and merest over the suit land? 6. Whether the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for? 7. Whether counter claim of the Defendant Nos. 20,21 and 26 are maintainable? 8. 5. Whether the documents of the parties actually bear the right, title and merest over the suit land? 6. Whether the suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for? 7. Whether counter claim of the Defendant Nos. 20,21 and 26 are maintainable? 8. To what relief, if any the parties are entitled? 5. The learned Trial Judge upon appreciation of the evidences on record vide judgment dated 20th August, 1996 decreed the suit of the Plaintiff by declaring the right-title and interest over the suit land and also for recovery of khas possession. By the said judgment the decree declaring the sale deeds dated 26th May, 1987 (Exhibits-21 and 22) as void and inoperative was also passed. Being aggrieved, the present Respondents/Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 preferred Title Appeal No. 4/1996 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hailakandi, which has been allowed by the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 11th July, 2000 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and consequently dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff. Hence the present appeal. 6. The appeal has been admitted for hearing vide order dated 4th December, 2000 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the learned lower appellate Court committee illegality in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court despite upholding its decision on Issue No. 3 to the effect that the sale deed Exhibit-1 executed by the Respondent/Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Appellant/plaintiff to be genuine? 2. Whether the learned Appellate Court was justified in dismissing Appellant/Plaintiff's suit despite concurrent findings on Issue No. 3? 3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court committed illegality in applying the provisions of the Assam Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1980? 7. I have heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiyan, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. D. Senapati, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 8. Mr. 3. Whether the learned lower appellate Court committed illegality in applying the provisions of the Assam Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1980? 7. I have heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiyan, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. D. Senapati, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 8. Mr. Rajborbhuiyan, learned Counsel for the Appellants, referring to the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court and also the substantial questions of law formulated vide order dated 4th December, 2000 has submitted that since the First Appellate Court has recorded the finding that the Exhibit-1 sale deed dated 15th June, 1987 executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the present Appellants is genuine, the learned First Appellate Court ought not to have dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. It has also been submitted that it is evident from Section 4 of the Assam Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1980 that the provisions of the said Act is not applicable in the case in hand as neither the original Plaintiff nor the Defendant No. 1 is not a citizen of India or is a body corporate or firm and hence, the learned First Appellate Court ought not to have applied the provisions of the said Act while deciding the appeal. The learned Counsel further submits that since Exhibit-1 sale deed was registered prior to the registration of Exhibits-21 and 22 sale deeds, i.e. on 3rd July, 1987, Plaintiff has acquired right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and his title over the suit land would not be affected by subsequent registration of sale deeds Exhibits-21 and 22. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court may be set aside by restoring the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 9. Mr. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court may be set aside by restoring the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 9. Mr. Senapati, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, supporting the judgment and decree under challenge has submitted that as in view of the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered document shall operate from the time of its execution and not from the time of its registration, Exhibits-21 and 22 sale deeds though were registered after the registration of Exhibit-1 sale deed, shall operate from the date of their execution, which is admittedly prior to the date of execution of Exhibit-1 sale deed and as such, even though the learned First Appellate Court ought not to have apply the provisions of the Assam Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1980, the same being not applicable in the case in hand, it would not affect the ultimate decision of the learned First Appellate Court. Referring to Exhibit-1 sale deed executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Plaintiff, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel that the said sale deed was executed on 15th June, 1987 and though the date of registration of the said sale deed is prior to the date of registration of Exhibits-21 and 22, since the date of operation of the sale deeds, i.e. Exhibits-21 and 22 are from 26th May, 1987, the Plaintiff cannot acquire right, title and interest on the basis of Exhibit-1 sale deed The learned Counsel, therefore submits that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court does not require any interference in second appeal. 10. It appears from the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court that the contention of the Plaintiff that Exhibits-21 and 22 sale deeds were antedated only with the view to deprive the Plaintiff from the benefit of Exhibit-1 sale deed and as such, those sale deeds are required to be cancelled, though was accepted by the learned Trial Court, the same was, however, negated by the learned First Appellate Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record. It appears from the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court that the finding relating to the antedating of the aforesaid sale deeds (Exhibits-21 and 22) were recorded basically on the basis of the evidence of PW-3, one of the witnesses to the execution of the Exhibits-21 and 22, by observing that PW-3 in his evidence has stated that the Defendant No. 1 and he put their signatures on the sale deeds on the day of registration. The learned First Appellate Court upon appreciation of the evidence of PW-3, relevant position of which has also been quoted in the judgment under challenge, has found that there is no statement made by PW-3 in his evidence that the Defendant No. 1 and he put their signatures in Exhibits-21 and 22 on the date of registration. The learned First Appellate Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record came to the finding that though the Plaintiff has alleged that Exhibits-21 and 22 were antedated, he could not prove so. Such finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court has not been challenged in the present appeal. It is not the case of the Appellant that such finding is perverse being contrary to the evidences on record or having arrived at without considering the material evidence. Such finding of fact, therefore, has concluded. 11. It also appears from the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court, which is under challenge in the present appeal, that the learned Court even though has noticed that the provisions of Assam Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1980 is is not applicable in the case in hand, it has proceeded to record the finding that the said Act does not state that obtaining of no objection certificate for transfer of the land must be preceded by execution of the sale deeds. Reference to the provisions of the said Act, however, does not in any way affect the ultimate decision of the learned First Appellate Court, the same being based on the provisions of the Regulation Act and for the reasons recorded herein below. 12. It appears that the Exhibits-21 and 22 sale deeds were executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 26th May, 1987. 12. It appears that the Exhibits-21 and 22 sale deeds were executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 26th May, 1987. The said documents, which are compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act read with Section 54 of the Transfer of Properties Act, were presented for registration and as such, were registered on 11th September, 1987. Exhibit-1 sale deed was executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of the original Plaintiff on 15th June, 1987, which was registered under the provisions of the Registration Act on 3rd July, 1987. 13. Section 23 of the Registration Act provides that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 24, 25 and 26, no document other than a Will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper officer within 4 (four) months from date of its execution. Section 25 also empowers the registering authority to accept a document for registration, on payment of a fine not exceeding 10 (ten) times the amount of the proper registration-fee, in cases where the delay in presentation does not exceed four months. Section 47 of the said Act provides that a registered document shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration. 14. In the case in hand, Exhibits-21 and 22 sale deeds, executed on 26th May, 1987 were registered within the period of 4 (four) months from their execution, i.e. on 11th September, 1987 and hence, by operation of Section 47 of the Registration Act, it would operate from the date of execution, i.e. on 26th May, 1987. Exhibit-1, executed on 15th June, 1987, was registered on 3rd July, 1987 and therefore, the date of operation of Exhibit-1 would be 15th June, 1987, which is after the date of operation of Exhibits-21 and 22, which is 26th May, 1987, even though Exhibit-1 sale deed was registered on 3rd July, 1987, i.e. before the date of registration of Exhibits-21 and 22, which is 11th September, 1987. Since Exhibits-21 and 22 sale deeds operate from 26th May, 1987, i.e. prior to the date of execution of Exhibit-1 sale deed by the Defendant No. l on 15th June, 1987, the Plaintiff cannot derive any title over the said land by virtue of Exhibit-1 sale deed. 15. That being the position, I am of the view that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff. 16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed