The judgment establishes the requirement for the genuine signature of the alleged executant for registration and the discretion of the Registrar in excusing delay in presentation for registration.

Pakenham Walsh, J.

1. The plaintiff sued for the compulsory registration of a document said to have been signed and executed by the 1st defendant on his own behalf and on behalf of his minor sons. This document purports to be a conveyance of a certain property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 800. The document is dated 15th March, 1929. It was presented for registration on 15th July, 1929, i.e., on the last day of the four months allowed for presentation. On 19th July, 1929, the 1st defendant appeared before the Registrar and admitted execution but pleaded that the plaintiff had agreed to execute an agreement to re-sell if the sale amount was re-paid within five years but would accede only to a term of three years. On this the Registrar remarked:

As this cannot be considered as urgent necessity or unavoidable accident, I refuse to register the document for non-appearance of the executant within the time prescribed by Section 34.

2. This suit was brought to enforce the registration of the document. For some reason or other issues were settled which went considerably outside of what was necessary for the determination of this suit. The first issue was:

Was the sale deed executed in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the plaint? and is the same void by reason of fraud and misrepresentation set out in paragraph 8 of the written statement of the 1st defendant?.

(2) Is the plaintiff entitled to specific performance of the contract as prayed for?

(3) Is the sale deed not valid and binding on defendants 2 and 3 for reasons set out in the written statement of defendants 2 and 3 ?

(4) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

3. Evidence was led and towards the close of the case the Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant who then came on the scene (Mr. Rajagopalan) raised the argument that the Court was not entitled to go at all into questions of consideration, fraud, misrepresentation, etc., in a suit to enforce registration under Section 77 of the Act. The learned City Civil Judge notes at the end of paragraph 5 thus:

Even he, however, conceded that it is open to me to find out whether defendant really or voluntarily signed the document, i.e., with full and free consent, after having the document read out to him and understanding its contents. It is to this point therefore that I address myself.

4. What exactly the nature of this concession was both in the light of the objection raised and of the final finding of the Court in paragraph 7 it is not very easy to see. In that paragraph the learned Judge says:

These circumstances make it abundantly clear that plaintiff has induced 1st defendant to put his signature to the document misrepresenting to him the nature of the document as well as of its contents and consideration. If defendant had known the true nature of the document when he was called upon to sign, and if in fact it had been read out to him, he would certainly have declined to sign it.

5. Later on he says:

In these circumstances I find that the defendant did not sign the document knowing its real nature or significance and his signature was not a voluntary act or one made with full and free consent or with the knowledge of the contents of the document he was putting his hands to.

6. It has been admitted before us by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a great deal of evidence is beside the point in a suit of this sort. But he has contended strongly that the execution in question amounted to no execution at all. In this connection he quotes the case in Foster v. Mackinnon (1869) 4 C.P. 704, where it is stated that the document was invalid "not merely on the ground of fraud, where fraud exists, but on the ground that the mind of the signer did not accompany the signature; in other words, that he never intended to sign, and therefore in contemplation of law never did sign, the contract to which his name is appended." That case does not however deal with execution from the point of view of the Registrati