8.As above noted, the plaintiff has clearly admitted in her evidence that Ex.B1 had been registered in the Forenoon of 21.01.1988. As could be seen from the entries contained in Ex.A1 sale deed projected by the plaintiff for claiming title to the suit property, it had come to be registered only in the Afternoon of 21.01.1988 between 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, the document Ex.B1 having come to be executed on 21.01.1988 and having been registered on the same date during the Forenoon by the defendants 4 to 6 and the said execution and registration had not been denied by the fourth defendant examined as DW2 and only thereafter, when as above noted, Ex.A1 sale deed had come to be executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff, in such view of the matter, when during the Forenoon of 21.01.1988 itself, the title to the suit property had been conveyed by the defendants 4 to 6 in favour of the first defendant and thereafter, they cease to have right in the suit property and in such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiff that he had derived title to the suit property by way of Ex.A1 sale transaction from the defendants 4 to 6, as such, cannot be countenanced as per law, because, at the time, when Ex.A1 sale transaction had been executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants 4 to 6 had no right to convey the same in favour of the plaintiff and in such view of the matter, the plaintiff is found to have acquired the property from the persons, who had no title to the suit property at the relevant point of time. On that premise, it is found that the Courts below had correctly determined that it is only Ex.B1, which will have legal precedence to Ex.A1 and in such view of the matter, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim title to the suit property based on Ex.A1 sale transaction.
