JUDGMENT : (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.) This appeal is from a divergent finding in a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiff sought declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.127/5 of Kambadahalli village, Taluk:Mandya. The total extent of the land is 26 guntas. 2. The declaration is essentially sought based on the registered sale deed dated 14.01.1991 said to have been executed by Rame Gowda who is admittedly the son-in-law of the plaintiff. Defendants contested the suit on the premise that Rame Gowda had no title over the property as Rame Gowda had sold the very same property under the sale deed dated 20.11.1990 which was registered on 29.08.1992 pursuant to the order passed by the District Registrar, Mandya in R.A. No.2/1991-92. 3. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 14.01.1991. Defendants' appeal in RA No.176/2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Mandya was allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were set-aside. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file a suit for partition by including all the joint family properties of Nanje Gowda and his family members. It is necessary to mention that Nanje Gowda under registered sale deed dated 31.01.1990 had made a claim that he had sold the suit schedule properties to Rame Gowda. 4. The plaintiff is before this Court in Second Appeal. Defendants have not assailed the said judgment and decree on the premise that the suit is dismissed in its entirety though the liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file a suit. 5. Certain facts are admitted: One Nanje Gowda sold the suit property under the registered sale deed 31.01.1990 in favour of Rame Gowda. Brother of Nanje Gowda -defendant No.1 and two sons of Nanje Gowda namely defendants No.2 and 3 filed objections to the said sale on the premise that the property is a joint family property and Nanje Gowda had no right to alienate the property. Mutation was not changed accepting the objection filed by defendants No.1 to 3. Subsequently, there was a Panchayat among Rame Gowda, Nanje Gowda and the defendants. The defendants claim that Rame Gowda agreed to reconvey the property. Mutation was not changed accepting the objection filed by defendants No.1 to 3. Subsequently, there was a Panchayat among Rame Gowda, Nanje Gowda and the defendants. The defendants claim that Rame Gowda agreed to reconvey the property. It is further stated by the defendants that on 20.11.1990, Rame Gowda executed a sale deed in favour of defendants and the sale deed was not registered as the property records were not in the name of Rame Gowda in view of the objections raised by the defendants in earlier occasion. The application is filed by defendants No.1 to 3 to record the name of Rame Gowda in the property records to facilitate registration of the sale deed. Said application was allowed on 22.12.1990. Thereafter, on 14.01.1991, Rame Gowda executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff his father- in- law. Defendants being aggrieved by the order refusing registration had filed an appeal in RA No.2/1991-92 before the District Registrar. The Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and directed registration of the sale deed dated 20.11.1990 and that was registered on 29.08.1992. 6. Defendants essentially took a contention that in view of the registration of sale deed dated 20.11.1990, which was registered on 29.08.1992 in view of the application of Section 47 and Section 75(3) of the Registration Act, 1908, the sale becomes effective and valid with effect from 20.11.1990 and based on this contention urged that sale deed dated 14.01.1991 does not convey any title in favour of Rame Gowda and Rame Gowda cannot convey any title in favour of the plaintiff. 7. First Appellate Court accepted the contention and consequently dismissed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would contend that even assuming that the property was a joint family property of Nanje Gowda, his brother and two sons, Nanje Gowda acting as kartha of the family comprising himself and his two sons had conveyed 1/2 share. And to that extent, sale took place in favour of the plaintiff by Rame Gowda is to be held as valid. First Appellate Court ought to have declared that the appellant has 1/2 share over the property. 9. And to that extent, sale took place in favour of the plaintiff by Rame Gowda is to be held as valid. First Appellate Court ought to have declared that the appellant has 1/2 share over the property. 9. In the alternative, he would submit that assuming that Nanje Gowda was not acting as a family Manager of his family comprising two sons, nevertheless he had 1/6 th share in the property, sale deed would be valid to the extent of 1/6 th share. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand would submit that the partition between Nanje Gowda and his brother-defendant No.1 is not established and it is not established that Nanje Gowda was the family Manager. Rame Gowda noticing all these facts has agreed to reconvey the property on 20.11.1990 and executed sale deed and sale deed is not registered as Rame Gowda's name was not appearing in the property records. And later Appellate Authority has directed registration of sale deed and it was registered and the order directing registration of the sale deed is not questioned by Rame Gowda. Plaintiff claiming through Rame Gowda is also bound by the said order and the plaintiff doses not acquire any title over the property. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant by way of reply would submit that when Rame Gowda reconveyed the property, he has not received the entire sale consideration amount and part of the sale consideration amount retained by him constitutes the share of Nanje Gowda. 12. It is relevant to notice that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is not one for general partition on the premise that he has acquired Nanjegowda's share under the sale deed dated 31.01.1990 or that Ramegowda has not reconveyed Nanjegowda's share under the sale deed dated 20.11.1990, which is registered on 29.08.1992. 13. First Appellate Court has not recorded a finding as to whether the sale deed registered on 29.08.1992 has conveyed entire right over the property in favour of the purchasers. Without recording any such finding, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file a suit for general partition subject to law of limitation. 14. This Court has to clarify whether Nanjegowda's share was reconveyed under the registered sale deed dated 29.08.1992 or not is not decided by either of the Court. Without recording any such finding, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file a suit for general partition subject to law of limitation. 14. This Court has to clarify whether Nanjegowda's share was reconveyed under the registered sale deed dated 29.08.1992 or not is not decided by either of the Court. Under these circumstances, the liberty granted by the First Appellate Court reserving liberty to the plaintiff/appellant to file a suit for partition should not be construed as finding that Nanjegowda's share is not conveyed to defendants No.1 and 2 under the registered sale deed dated 29.08.1992. 15. If at all, plaintiff files a suit, the suit has to be decided by raising an issue as to whether the sale deed executed by Ramegowda on 20.11.1990 which is registered on 29.08.1992 is in respect of entire property or only in respect of the property held by defendants No.1 and 2. 16. No substantial question of law would arise. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.