Judgement

Consolidated Appeals from two judgments and decrees of the High Court (February 13, 1912), one of which confirmed and the other partly confirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur (September 26, 1910).

The question for determination in the appeals was whether two mortgages, dated respectively July 2, 1832, and August 10, 1886, had been duly registered under the Registration Act (III. of 1877).

The mortgage dated July 2, 1882, was executed by Nawab Saiyid Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Ilyas Khan in favour of Lala Mitter Sen.

The mortgage dated August 10, 1886, was executed by the said Nawab Saiyid Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Khurshed Ali Khan, and the first respondent also in favour of Lala Mitter Sen.

There was a third mortgage dated October 25, 1892, which was not the subject of the present appeal.

The appellant instituted two suits against the respondent, the first to enforce the mortgage of 1886, and the second to enforce the mortgages of 1882 and 1892.

The first respondent, by an amendment of his written statement, pleaded that the mortgages sued on were not presented for registration by a competent person, and that the sub-registrar had no jurisdiction to register them.

The provisions of the Registration Act, 1877, with regard to the presentation of a document for registration under the Act are contained in ss. 32 and 33, which, so far as material, are set out in the judgment of their Lordships.

The indorsement of the registering officer upon the deed of July 2, 1882, was as follows —

" This document was presented in the office of the sub-registrar at tahsil Saharanpur on Tuesday, July 11, 1882, at 3 p.m. " (sd.) Natthu Mal, general attorney of Lala Mitter Sen. " (Signature of sub-registrar)

"Nawab Saiyid Muhammad Khan, aged 50 years, and Muhammad Ilyas Khan, aged 35 years " (here followed particulars of identification), " admitted the execution of this document and received at this time in my presence the sum of Rs.59,000 in cash as per detail given in this document.

"Dated July 3, 1882."

Then followed the signature of the sub-registrar and that of the mortgagors.

The indorsement upon the mortgage of August 10, 1886, was in similar terms, except that "Ilahi Bakhsh, general attorney of Lala Mitter Sen," signed as presenting the document.

The respondents called as a witness the sub-registrar, who produced the register of powers of attorney which contained a power of attorney by Lala Mitter Sen in favour of Natthu Mal dated June 19, 1882, and one in favour of Ilahi Bakhsh dated February 17, 1885. These powers of attorney, however, did not authorize them to present the documents in question for registration.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suits, holding that the documents had not been presented by duly authorized agents within ss. 32 and 33 of the registration Act, 1877.

The High Court (Sir H. Griffen J. and Chamier J.), by its judgment delivered on February 12, 1912, affirmed the judgment of the Subordinate Judge so far as it related to the mortgages of July 2, 1882, and August 10, 1886. The learned judges were of opinion that the certificates of registration indorsed upon them raised a strong presumption that they were duly registered, but that this presumption was rebutted by the evidence. They rejected the argument that the executants could be regarded as the persons presenting the documents for registration, and held that the admission of the mortgagors under

s. 34 did not dispense with a strict fulfilment with the provisions of ss. 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1877.

The proceedings upon the appeal to the High Court are reported at I. L. R. 34 Allah. 331.

De Gruyther, K.C., and 0Gorman, for the appellant. An indorsed certificate of the registering officer under s. 60 of the Act is conclusive that the document to which it relates has been duly registered and renders it admissible in evidence Sah Mukhun Lall Panday v.Sah Koondun Lall (( 1875) L. R 2 Ind. Ap. 210.) ; Mohammed Ewaz v. Birj Lall. (