JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and in view of the fact that the appeal is four years old, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 22.7.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Ramdurg in R.A. No. 109/2007 [hereinafter referred to as ‘LAC’] dismissing the appeal against the Judgment dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Ramdurg in O.S. No. 22/2006 [hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’] dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, in which the appellant had prayed for a declaration to declare that he had got priority right of purchase over the suit property when the defendants sell the said suit property. The parties in this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that agricultural land bearing R.S. No. 107/2B, measuring 3 acres, 31 guntas situated at Torangatti Village and another property in R.S. No. 107/2A, were only one land. The entire land was possessed by the plaintiff’s father and his brothers Gireppa and Patreppa. The said persons filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights over the above said entire land before the Land Tribunal, Ramdurg. The Land Tribunal, Ramdurg under its order No. LRM/Torangatti/SSR-1 granted the said land in the name of above said persons. Thereafter, the defendant preferred a writ petition, whereafter the matter was again remanded back for fresh disposal before the Land Tribunal, Ramdurg. During the pendency of the enquiry before the Land Tribunal, the parties compromised the matter and an area of 4 acres of land was given to the plaintiff’s family and the remaining land was given to defendant No. 1. At the time of compromise before the elders, it was agreed in between plaintiff’s father and his uncles that if the defendant wants to transfer the property, the priority should be given to the plaintiff’s family. It was orally agreed by the defendants to the said condition on the condition that they should be paid the prevailing rate at the time of sale. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he came to know that the suit property has been sold to some other persons without offering the same to him. It was orally agreed by the defendants to the said condition on the condition that they should be paid the prevailing rate at the time of sale. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he came to know that the suit property has been sold to some other persons without offering the same to him. Therefore, the plaintiff being the shareholder to the owner of the adjacent property, who has got an extent of 2 acres of land to himself and another 2 acre had fallen to the share of one Gireppa, he has no other land except the aforesaid 2 acres of land and that if the suit schedule property is sold to third persons, it will create problems and lead to unnecessary litigations. It is further averred in the suit that if the suit property is sold to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is ready to pay the amount as undertaken by him at the time of compromise and he is ready to purchase the property at the prevailing price. He is even prepared to buy the property at the rate fixed by this Court and hence, he has filed the suit. 5. Defendant No. 1 has contested the said suit, denying the allegations made in the plaint, while admitting the fact that the entire land was formerly owned by one family. However, he has denied the averment that father of the plaintiff and his brothers namely., Gireppa and Patreppa were in possession of the said land. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that the suit property bearing R.S. No. 107/2B is in the exclusive ownership of the defendant and formerly the entire land in R.S. No. 107/2, totally measuring 7 acres 32 guntas was in the possession of defendant’s family and further that the land was granted under the orders of the Land Tribunal, Ramdurg. However, he has denied the claim of the plaintiff regarding the oral agreement for sale of his part of the land namely., 4 acres of the land to the plaintiff. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has got priority right over the suit schedule property if the defendant sells the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is bind by the contract of sale entered in between them? 3. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has got priority right over the suit schedule property if the defendant sells the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is bind by the contract of sale entered in between them? 3. What order or decree? Addl. Issue No. 1: Whether defendant proves that the present suit is barred by law as per the provisions of Section 22 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 7. The trial Court took up the additional issue as the preliminary issue. Though the plaintiff subjected himself to adduce his evidence in examination-in-chief, in view of the orders passed on issue No. 1 the plaintiff was not subjected to cross examination and the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and imposed the exemplary cost of Rs. 2,000/- on the plaintiff. The trial Court held additional issue No. 1 in favour of the defendant holding that the suit is not maintainable. 8. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed a Regular Appeal before the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Ramdurg in R.A. No. 109/2007 and on receipt of the said appeal, the Lower Appellate Court framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? 2. Whether the trial Court judgment and decree under appeal warrant interference? 3. What order? 9. After hearing the plaintiff and the defendants, the Lower Appellate Court held the appeal in favour of the defendant and dismissed the appeal. 10. It is against this order of dismissal passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Ramdurg in R.A. No. 109/2007, this Regular Second Appeal has been filed. 11. Heard Sri Gangadhar Hosakeri, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.V. Gunjal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 12. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the property adjacent to the property of the defendant. That at the time of compromise during the pendency of the case before the Land Tribunal, the defendant had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff on the prevailing rate if at all the defendant is interested in selling the property. However, instead of selling the property to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has sold the property in the name of defendant No. 2. However, instead of selling the property to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has sold the property in the name of defendant No. 2. After institution of the suit, defendant No. 2 has been impleaded as a party during the pendency of the suit. 13. It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is only holding 2 acres of land and for a better enjoyment of his land, he requires the land of defendant No. 1 and that as per the oral agreement between the parties, the defendant is legally obliged to sell the land to the plaintiff. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads as follows: “48. Priority of rights created by transfer.—Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immoveable property, and such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a special contract or reservation binding the earlier transferees, be subject to the rights previously created.” The defendant is legally obliged to sell the 4 acres of land to him and that the suit ought to have been decreed in his favour. 14. Sri P.V. Gunjal, learned Counsel for the second respondent on the other hand submits that under Section 48 of the Registration Act, 1908, the documents creating rights relating to any property which is duly registered prevails on the oral agreement or the declaration relating to such property and therefore in this case the second respondent has already purchased the suit schedule property from the first defendant and that the rights created under that document prevails over the oral agreement even if it is admitted to have been entered into at the time of compromise. 15. After giving my careful consideration to the entire materials on record, I find that there is no over riding right on behalf of the plaintiff over the property of the defendant indicated as on the date of effecting compromise and dividing the property bearing Sy. No. 107/2 before the Land Tribunal, but also subsequently no such rights as sought by the plaintiff have been established either in law or by practice. No. 107/2 before the Land Tribunal, but also subsequently no such rights as sought by the plaintiff have been established either in law or by practice. Therefore, the view taken by the learned trial Court cannot be found fault with, so also, the view taken by the lower appellate Court. I have also gone through the reasoning assigned by the lower Appellate Court and the reasoning assigned therein are neither perverse nor against the settled principles of law. 16. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not made out any case in this appeal to interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.