Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

GURBAX SINGH versus KARTAR SINGH AND ORS.

Decided
11 February 2002
Judges listed
S.S.M. QUADRI, B.P. SINGH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2002] 1 S.C.R. 940 · 2002 INSC 74
Also cited as
  • AIR 2002 SC 959 (7 citing judgments)
  • (2002) 2 SCC 611 (6 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. .

p. 940, margin G

Jamail Singh, respondent No. 2 executed two documents of sale (Exs. · P-2 and D-1) on November 25, 199 I. Having regard to the findings of the Courts below that Ex. P-2 was executed earlier than Ex.D.1-land having noted Ex. P-2 in favour of the first respondent was executed at 10.00 a.m. and it was not shown when Ex. D-1 was executed in favour of the petitioner, the High Court, vide its order dated October 25, 2001, in RSA No. 4050 of 1999 confirmed the concurrent finding of the courts below holding that Ex. P-2 prevails over Ex. D-1 and thus dismissed the second appeal. It is against the said order that this Special Leave Petition is filed.

pp. 940–941, margin G

In view of the provisions of Section 4 7 of the Registration Act, 1908 it is well-settled that a document on subsequent registration will take effect from the time when it was executed and not from the time of its registration. Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently. In view of the concurrent findings, referred to above, the High Court has rightly held that Ex. P-2 prevails over Ex. D-1. We find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

p. 941, margin B

Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 941, margin D