9911796707
TMI Blog1877 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to shew the facts which invalidate it. They have not proved that the shares were held jointly, nor does it appear that that point was made in either of the appeals below. 2. The subordinate Judge of Bareilly, and the Judge of Bareilly to whom the case went from the subordinate Judge on appeal, found that the mother had not executed the deed, but that the two sons had done so, and a decree was given by the subordinate Judge, which was affirmed by the Judge, in these terms: " That a decree be given to the Plaintiff for the completion of the sale deed dated the 14th of January, 1874, to the extent of the rights of Hyat Mohammed and Salamtitoollah, Defendants, in the shares of mouzahs Tah and Kishanpur Maupur against the said Defendants and the vendees, and the claim for possession of the said shares, and for the rights of Mmmmub Mobaruk Jan, be dismissed." That decree may be taken to be a declaration that the Appellants, as the heirs of the vendee, are entitled to the rights, whatever they were, of Hyai Mohammed and Salamutoollah in these mouzahs. The decree goes no further, it refuses to decree possession; and, from the reasons given by the Judge; for his decree, it wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and she was not a consenting party to it; that they had not received any money from this vendee, and they, having received a larger amount of consideration from Byjnath, &c, executed a sale-deed in their favour, and had it registered, and that they had no mind to have this sale-deed registered." The last statement, that they had no mind to have the deed registered, appears to have been treated as a refusal on their part to endorse the document; but the Act gives power to the registrar to register, notwithstanding such a refusal, and accordingly the registrar did register the deed in the formal manner required by the Act, and made this formal endorse-ment of registration upon the instrument: " This document is registered at No. 40, p. 299, vol. si., Register No. 1, on the 16th of January, 1874." 6. The deed of sale to the Respondents, which also bears date on the 14th of January, 1874, had been brought to the registry on the l5 th; and all the vendors having admitted , either by themselves or their agent, that that deed had been executed, it was registered on that day. Nothing, however, turns upon the priority of the registration of this deed, because by the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to enlarge the time, and a provision that the appearances may be simultaneous or at different times. Then " the registering officer shall thereupon inquire whether or not such document was executed by the persons by whom it purports to have been executed," and " satisfy himself as to the identity of the persons appearing before him and alleging that they have executed the document, and, in the case of any person appearing as a representative, assign, or agent, satisfy himself of the right of such person so to appear." 9. The 35th section is: " If all the persons executing the document "--again, not "purporting to execute it,"--but "if all the persons executing the document appear personally before the . registering, officer and are personally known to him, or if he be otherwise satisfied that they are the persons they represent themselves to be, and if they all admit the execution of the document, or, in the case of any person appearing by a representative, assign, or agent, if such representative, assign, or agent admits the execution, or if the person executing the document is dead and his representative or assign appears before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered invalid? If so, effect could not be given to the proviso. And if that registration is not to be invalid, what difference in principle can there be between the case where three vendors appear at different times to admit or deny the execution, and where they appear at the same time to admit or deny the same fact? That which is required of them is precisely the same in both cases, and the admission and denial ought in reason to have the same effect in both. 10. Their Lordships cannot but think that considerable light is thrown upon the intention of the Legislature by the provision that there may be under the circumstances mentioned a registration and re-registration of the same document. 11. Again, the registering officer is to refuse to register, not only in the case of persons who deny the execution of the deed, but in the case of persons who appear--that is, who appear to him--to be minors, or idiots, or lunatics. Suppose a deed executed by three persons, two of whom wore under no disability, and who admit their execution, but the third had become a lunatic, it would follow, if the construction contended for by the Respondents were to prevail, that that deed could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich furnish, in their view, a context to explain and cut down the generality of the words used in the 35th section. 14. This point will of course: dispose of the appeal. But there is another part of the judgment of the High Court which their Lordships think requires consideration. The High Court say," It has been held by this Court more than once, that unless a deed be registered in accordance with the substantial provisions of the law, it must be regarded as unregistered, though it may, in fact, have been improperly admitted to registration." Their Lordships think this is too broadly stated, if the High Court is to be understood to mean that in all cases where a registered deed is produced, it is open to the party objecting to the deed, to contend that there was an improper registration,--that the terms of the Registration Act in sumo substantial respects have not been complied with. Undoubtedly, it would be a most inconvenient rule if it wore to be laid down generally, that all Courts, upon the production of a deed which has the registrar's indorsement of duo registration, should be called on to inquire, before receiving it in evidence, whether the registrar had pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .It was a good deal considered in the case to which Mr. Cowie has referred: Bah Mukhun Loll Panday v. Sah Koondun Lall Low Rep. 2 Ind Ap. 210; and although it was not there necessary to decide the point,--indeed the point did not arise, and the appeal was decided upon another ground,--yet the considerations to which their Lordships have just adverted, were discussed in the judgment in this way: " Now, considering that the registration of all conveyances of Immovable property of the value of ₹ 100 or upwards is by the Act rendered compulsory, and that proper legal advice is not generally accessible to persons taking conveyances of land of small value, it is scarcely reasonable to suppose that it was the intention of the Legislature that every registration of a deed should be null and void by reason of a non-compliance with the provisions of sections 19, 21, or 30, or other similar provisions." It may be observed, that section 36 in the former Act is the equivalent of section 35 in the present Act. "It is rather to be inferred that the Legislature intended that such errors or defects should be classed under the general words, 'defect in procedure, in section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
