Registering officer when could be deemed as attesting witness.

One of the questions which arises in this batch of appeals from the Original Side is whether the security bond which Haji Ahmed Badsha executed on 26th March, 1953 over some immovable properties belonging to him is invalid because it had not been duly attested in accordance with the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act. The document was attested only by one witness at the time of the execution. It was contended on behalf of the person relying upon the security bond that the signature of the Registrar at the time of the registration would serve the purpose of attestation and, therefore, the deed was not’ invalid. There is no doubt the decision of the Full Bench in Veerappa Chettiar v. Subrahmania Ayyar1, where it was held that the signature of the registering officer and of the identifying witnesses affixed to the registration endorsement are a sufficient attestation within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. It was contended before Balakrishna Ayyar, J., that the authority of this decision has been considerably shaken by the observations of the Privy Council in Ramanathan Chetti v. Delhi Batcha2, and a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had taken a contrary view. An unreported decision of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., in Second Appeal No. 1548 of 1950 was also relied upon in which the learned Judge had observed that the Full Bench decision may require re-examination. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., himself felt bound to follow the judgment of the Full Bench; but he has indicated enough to show that the decision of the Full Bench does require reconsideration. We therefore consider that the following question shall be placed before a Full Bench namely, whether the decision in Veerappa Chettiar v. Subrahmania Ayyar1, requires re-consideration.

In pursuance of the order of reference the appeals came on for hearing before a Full Bench (P. Rajagopalan, O.C.J., Ramachandra Iyer, Veeraswami, Srinivasan and Kunhamed Kutti, JJ.).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Ramachandra Iyer, J.†-The following question has been referred for the opinion . of the Full Bench:

“Whether the decision in Veerappa Chettiar v. Subrahmania Iyer,1requires reconsideration.”

The appeals which have given occasion for the reference involve a question as to the validity of a security bond executed in favour of the Registrar of this Court creating a charge over certain immoveable properties for payment of the amount due under a decree. The document was attested only by one witness at the time of execution. When the document was presented for registration, the admission of execution by the Mortgagor was vouched by the signature of the Registrar. Two persons who identified the mortgagor before the Registrar also affixed their signature in token of their identification. The appellant, who impugned the validity of the security bond, contends that neither the Registrar nor the identifying witnesses could be deemed to be attesting witnesses, and those signatures cannot have the effect of rendering the document as a duly executed mortgage. A Full Bench of this Court in Veerappa Chettiar v. Subrahmania Iyer1, held that the signatures of the registering officer and the identifying witnesses to the registration endorsement would be sufficient attestation within the meaning of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act the reason given being that the registering officer and the identifying witnesses performed the same duty under the Registration Act, as would be done by the attesting witnesses under the Transfer of Property Act. Although the decision in that case stated that the signatures on the registration endorsement made alio intuitu to satisfy the requirements of the Registration Act could also be taken for the purpose of constituting thereby an attestation under the Transfer of Property Act, subsequent decisions of this Court have understood it to mean that it is only in cases where the evidence in a case establishes the fact that the Sub-Re