Letters Patent Appeal No.463 OF 1996 (Against judgment and order dated 12.12.1995 in CWJC No.2516, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court) RAJ NARAIN SINGH ,son of Late Rambilas Singh, resident of village Bazitpur, PO Khan Bazitpur, Via- Biroli, PS Samastipur, District Samastipur .. .. .. .. Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Joint Director of Consolidation (Muzaffarpur) Patna 3. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Samastipur 4. Consolidation Officer, Samastipur …(Respondents) – Respondents 1st set 5. (i) Bipti Devi (ii) Ram Sayeedan Singh (iii)Rajeev Kuwal Singh (iv)Ramwali Devi (v) Manju Devi …(Petitioners) –Respondents 2nd set 6. Raghubar Mahto 7. Smt. Tetri Devi 8. Smt. Anandi Devi 9. Smt. Neelam Devi 10. Expunged 11. Raghu Nath Singh 12. Naresh Singh 13. Sumitra Devi 14. Bijay Devi 15. Sita Devi 16. Jago Devi 17. Sangita Devi 18. Rnki Kumari 19. Champa Devi 20. Yogendra Singh 21. Shivjee Singh 22. Jago Devi 23. Bedo Devi 24. Satia Devi 25. Ram Bali Devi 26. Umada Devi …(Respondents) –Respondents 3rd set (Proforma) 27. Shri Yogendra Singh. (Respondent)- Respondent 4th set …….. Respondents ******** For the Appellant : Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey For Respondent nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha Govt. Advocate No.II For Respondent nos.5(i) to 5(v) : Mr. Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha ********* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA S K Katriar, & Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. J. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred 2 by one of the respondents of CWJC No. 2516 of 1984, whereby the writ petition preferred by Lilai Mahto since deceased has been allowed, and the order of the learned Director of Consolidation has been set aside. 2. A brief statement of factss essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. One Gopal Mahto had alienated 2 bighas, 13 kathas, and 1 dhur of his land way back in 1948, in favour of his sister Sibarti, and her two sons, namely, Raghubar and Mahabir, who came in possession soon thereafter and acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the said lands. The land was subsequently partitioned between Sibarti and her son Raghubar who got half and half share each, and no share was allotted to Mahabir because he was traceless and was subsequently declared to be a person of unsound mind. On 30.10.68, Raghubar executed two registered sale deeds. By one document of 30.10.68, he alienated 1 bigha, 6 kathas, and 10 dhurs of land in favour of the writ petitioner, and by another registered sale deed of the same date, the same area of land was alienated in favour of the son of the writ petitioner. It later on transpired that the three persons, namely, Sibarti, Raghubar and Mahabir, had already executed a registered agreement for sale (Mahadanama) on 25.11.67 in favour of four persons jointly, namely, Yogesh Singh, Ram Vilas, Shree Chandra Singh, and Ram Gulam Singh, for sale of the lands for a total consideration money of Rs.6000/-, and a sum of Rs.1500/- was handed over by way of advance. This was followed by another registered sale deed dated 16.12.68, by Raghubar in favour of the said four persons, alienating 17 kathas and 16 dhurs of land. There is thus a conflict of interest between the unregistered agreement for sale and the three registered sale deeds. The issue was considered by the authorities under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned revisional authority in exercise of powers under Section 35 of the Act, found against Lilai Mahto since deceased and his son. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred the said writ petition which was allowed by the impugned order, whereby the learned single Judge has held that the sale deeds dated 30.10.68, in favour of Lilai Mahto and his son, was a registered deed of absolute sale and was in point of time earlier than the other registered sale deed of 16.12.68. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed and it 3 was directed that the two registered sale deeds of 30.10.68 shall take precedence over the remaining documents. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, one of the heirs of respondent has preferred this appeal. 3. It appears to us from the narration of fact indicated hereinabove that no exception can be taken to the view as has been taken by the learned single Judge. Law is well settled that the holder of title of a property is deprived of his right, title and interest to the extent he has alienated the same by a registered deed of sale and binds him in so far as the purchaser is concerned. Once the owner has alienated the property, he is denuded of all interest in the property and he cannot alienate it any further. In that view of the matter, we agree with the view taken by the learned single Judge that the registered sale deeds dated 30.10.68, in favour of Lilai Mahto since deceased, will take precedence over the remaining documents. 4. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma ) Patna High Court, Patna The 18th of September 2009 NAFR/mrl