JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. This regular second appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 10.06.2013 passed in R.A. No.7 of 2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. Appellant was defendant No.1, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and respondent No.2 was defendant No.2. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, an agricultural land bearing Survey No.155/3, measuring 11 guntas situated at Hagalahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that originally, the suit schedule property belonged to defendant No.2 and the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.2000 for a valid consideration from defendant No.2, and the vendor of the plaintiff put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, since from the date of its purchase. The name of the plaintiff was entered in the revenue records as a owner and in possession. The defendants have no right, title, ownership or interest over the suit schedule property. At the instigation of defendant No.2, defendant No.1 came to the suit property on 18.01.2008 and made an unlawful attempt to trespass upon the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Due to timely intervention of respectable persons in the locality, defendant No.1 went away. It is contended that defendant No.1 may come at any time and may try to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Thus, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the so-called sale deed dated 29.06.2000 executed by defendant No.2 was got registered on 11.08.2000 by mentioning the date as 29.06.2000. It is contended that the said document was got created with an ulterior motive to lay a false claim over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the said document was got created with an ulterior motive to lay a false claim over the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.2 sold 03 guntas of land out of 11 guntas in the suit schedule property on 05.07.2000 for a valuable consideration and executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and the possession was delivered in favour of defendant No.1. However, at the instigation of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and his wife filed a petition before the Tahasildar, Maddur. The Tahasildar, Maddur directed the defendants to approach the Civil Court. 7. Accordingly, defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.170 of 2002 seeking a relief of declaration that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 05.07.2000 and the consequential reliefs of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 and his family members from interfering in the peaceful possession. The said suit was decreed. There is no sale transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and the said registered sale deed is void, invalid and illegal, and hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. Though summons was served on defendant No.2, he remained unrepresented and hence, was placed ex parte'. 9. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for? 4. What order or decree? 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined three witnesses as PW-2 to PW-4 and marked 04 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-4. 11. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1, examined two witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and marked 12 documents as Exhibits D-1 to D-12. 12. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative; issue No.4, as per the final order and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in O.S. No.89 of 2008 vide judgment dated 16.12.2008. 13. 12. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the negative; issue No.4, as per the final order and consequently, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in O.S. No.89 of 2008 vide judgment dated 16.12.2008. 13. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in O.S. No.89 of 2008, preferred an appeal in R.A. No.7 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur. 14. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit of the of in respect of the suit schedule property ? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court calls for any interference at the hands of this Court? 3. What order? 15. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative; point No.3, as per the final order. The appeal was allowed on 10.06.2013 and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.89 of 2008 dated 16.12.2008, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J.M.F.C., Maddur, was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and a decree for permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 16. Defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No.7 of 2009, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Heard the learned counsel for defendant No.1 and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 18. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that defendant No.1 had purchased the portion of the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed, from defendant No.2. He submitted that defendant No.2, colluding with the plaintiff has created the registered sale deed dated 29.06.2000, whereas the said sale deed was registered on 11.08.2000. Hence, he submits that defendant No.1 is a bona fide purchaser and defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 19. Hence, he submits that defendant No.1 is a bona fide purchaser and defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The First Appellate Court has not properly re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 19. He also submits that the document, vide Ex.P-1, creates a suspicion and doubt that there is no date on which the stamp papers were purchased and he submits that Exhibit P-1 was not executed on 29.06.2000. 20. The First Appellate Court, considering Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, has passed the impugned judgment recording a finding that the said document was executed on 29.06.2000 and it was registered on 11.08.2000. 21. He submits that the plaintiff has not lead any evidence to establish that the sale deed was executed on 29.06.2000. He submits that from the perusal of the sale deed-Exhibit P-1, it is clear that 1 st defendant's sale deed was much prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that defendant No.1 had filed a suit for declaration of title against defendant No.2 on the same subject matter and the said suit was decreed and the appeal was dismissed. It is further contended that no second appeal was preferred against the order of the First Appellate Court. Hence, it has attained the finality. Thus, the First Appellate Court without considering the said facts, has committed an error in passing the impugned judgement. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 22. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the vendor of the plaintiff executed a sale deed on 29.06.2000 and the same was registered on 11.08.2000. He submits that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is much prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant. He places reliance on Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. He submits that the date of execution of the sale deed is to be taken into consideration and not the date of registration of an instrument. 23. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through LRs vs. Gejo (d) Thorough LRs, Civil Appeal No.9098 of 2013, disposed of on 02.01.2024. 23. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Raj Singh (D) through LRs vs. Gejo (d) Thorough LRs, Civil Appeal No.9098 of 2013, disposed of on 02.01.2024. He submits that the First Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgement. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 24. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 25. This Court, on 29.07.2013 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgement passed in O.S.No.89/2008 without taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.170/2002 filed by first defendant against second defendant?" Reg. Substantial Question of Law: 26. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself as PW1 and deposed that the suit schedule property was originally owned and possessed by defendant No.2. The plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property from defendant No.2 under a registered sale date dated 29.06.2000 for valuable consideration of Rs.13,000/- and he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and defendant No.2 delivered the possession of the suit schedule property. Since from the date of purchase i.e. 29.06.2000, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 came to the suit property on 18.01.2008 and made an unlawful and attempt to trespass upon the suit property and to dispossess him and contending that he had purchased the portion of the suit schedule property from defendant No.1 under a registered sale deed dated 05.07.2000. 27. The plaintiff to substantiate his case produced the documents, Ex.P1 is the original registered sale deed which discloses that defendant No.2 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.P2 is the RTC extract, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the deposition, Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 on 05.07.2000. The plaintiff also examined three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4. The plaintiff also examined three witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4. They have deposed that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and it was purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No.2 and executed a sale deed dated 29.06.2000 and the same was registered on 11.08.2000. They also deposed that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 28. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1. He has deposed that defendant No.2 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he sold the portion of Sy.No.155/3 to the extent of 3 guntas to defendant No.1 and he had executed a registered sale deed marked as Ex.P4. Ex.D1 is the original registered sale deed (Ex.P4), Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the voters list, Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the ration card, Ex.D4 is the certified copy of the mutation extract, which discloses that the revenue authority is based on Ex.D1. The name of defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records to the extent of 3 guntas of land in Sy.No.155/3. Ex.D5 is the certified copy of the order. Ex.D6 is the certified copy of the complaint which discloses that defendant No.1 lodged a complaint against the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff tried to interfere with the said defendants' possession over the suit schedule property. Ex.D8 is the certified copy of the police endorsement, wherein the police have refused to entertain the complaint on the ground that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants is civil in nature and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. Ex.D9 is another complaint lodged by the defendants against the plaintiff. Exs.D10 and D11 are the certified copies of the postal acknowledgment. Ex.D12 is the certified copy of the judgment, wherein it discloses that defendant No.1 filed a suit against defendant No.2 seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in O.S. No.170 of 2002. Based on the registered sale deed marked as Ex.D1, defendant No.1 is claiming to be the owner to the extent of 3 guntas in Sy.No.155/3. The said suit was decreed against defendant No.2, Ex.D12(a) is the certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.170/2002. 29. Based on the registered sale deed marked as Ex.D1, defendant No.1 is claiming to be the owner to the extent of 3 guntas in Sy.No.155/3. The said suit was decreed against defendant No.2, Ex.D12(a) is the certified copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.170/2002. 29. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, the crux of the case is whether the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff is much prior to the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.1. Admittedly, the plaintiff is claiming that defendant No.2 executed a sale deed on 29.06.2000 and the same was registered on 11.08.2000. Defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 05.07.2000 in respect of 3 guntas in Sy.No.155/3. Out of 11 guntas, 3 guntas were sold in favour of defendant No.1. Though the plaintiff has produced Ex.P1, which discloses that it was executed on 29.06.2000. I have perused the document Ex.P1. It does not disclose when the stamp paper was purchased. The date and number is left blank on the back side of the stamp paper. To establish that Ex.P1 was executed on 29.06.2000, the plaintiff made the vendor as defendant No.2. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine defendant No.2 to establish that Ex.P1 was executed on 29.06.2000. 30. The learned counsel for the plaintiff placed a reliance on Section 47 of the Act. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanwar Singh (Supra). 31. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of Section 47 of the Act i.e., the date of execution is to be considered. There is no dispute regarding the proposition that the sale effect from the date on which the sale deed was executed and not on the date of registration. Admittedly, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that defendant No.2 executed Ex.P1 on 29.06.2000 and the same was registered on 11.08.2000. Admittedly, defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 05.07.2000 to the extent of 3 guntas in Sy.No.155/3. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the said Ex.P1 was executed on 29.06.2000. All the stamp papers, purchased under Ex.P1, the number and the date has been left blank. Admittedly, defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 05.07.2000 to the extent of 3 guntas in Sy.No.155/3. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the said Ex.P1 was executed on 29.06.2000. All the stamp papers, purchased under Ex.P1, the number and the date has been left blank. Only on Ex.P1 the date is written in handwriting. Except the hand written date, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to establish that the stamp papers were purchased on 29.06.2000. Further, the plaintiff has not examined the vendor of the stamp papers to establish that the stamp papers were purchased on 29.06.2000. 32. In order to consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Rule 6A of the Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958: " 6-A. Issue of paper bearing impressed Stamp.- (1) When an application for issue of a sheet of paper bearing an impressed stamp of a particular value is made to the Treasury Officer or to a licensee, the Treasury Officer or the licensee shall, where possible issue a single sheet bearing a impressed stamp of that value. If such a sheet is not available, the minimum number of such sheets required to make up the requisite value only shall be issued. In such cases, the Treasury Officer or the licensee shall certify on each such sheet that the required value of such sheet is not available and that only the minimum numbers of such sheets required have been issued. 2) Where the value of such sheet applied for is higher than the highest value of such sheet which the licensee is licensed to sell, the licensee shall not sell such sheets of lesser value to the extent of the required value." 33. Rule 6A essentially provides the guidelines for situations where a single sheet of impressed stamp paper is insufficient for the entire text of an instrument or where multiple stamped sheets are used. 34. In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant No.2 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff before the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. 34. In the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant No.2 executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff before the execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1. The said aspect was not properly considered by the First Appellate Court and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record and has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, and alleged interference by the defendant, has rightly dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court without properly considering the fact that when the stamp papers were purchased for executing the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff passed the impugned judgment. In the absence of evidence of stamp vendor, the First Appellate Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. 35. Further, defendant No.1 has filed a suit against the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.170/2002. Defendant No.2 has contested the suit by filing a written statement and also by cross-examining PW.1, led evidence in the said suit. The trial Court, after full-fledged trial, decreed the suit in O.S.No.170/2002, and the first appeal was dismissed against the said decree. The judgment passed in O.S.No.170/ 2002 has attended a finality. The plaintiff has not challenged the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 170/2002. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the records. 36. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative. 37. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed ii. The judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013 passed in R.A.No.7/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Maddur is set aside. iii. The judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008 passed in O.S.No.89/2008 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Maddur is restored. iv. No orders as to the costs. v. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly.