The term 'person executing' in Sections 32 and 34 of the Registration Act includes an agent who executes a deed on behalf of his principal, and presentation of a deed for registration by such an agent is valid.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals Nos. 4 and 3 of 1958 arise out of two several suits filed by plaintiff Sakinabai W/o Hatimbhai against Sakinabai and her husband Ibrahim for the enforcement of two different mortgages first dated 7-4-1952 and, the second dated 23-12-1952. Amount sought to be recovered under the first mortgage was rs. 6408-1-0 and that under the second was Rs. 8680/ -. Plaintiff sought to recover these amounts by the sale of mortgaged property.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF alleged that the mortgage-deeds in question had been executed by the husband of the defendant Sakinabai in his capacity as her Am Mukhtyar. He also had got them registered. Controversy is as to the validity of registration at his instance. 'under the first deed dated 7-4-1952 Rs. 5500/- were borrowed at Annas 12 per cent per month as interest and under the second Rs. 7000/- were borrowed at Rupee one per cent per month. Both the deeds, according to the plaintiff, had been attested by two attesting witnesses.

( 3 ) PRINCIPAL defence set up by the defendant No. 1 Sakinabai was that her husband ibrahimbhai had not been conferred any authority to effect registration of the deeds in question. She also disclaimed any knowledge about their execution on her behalf. Defendant No. 2 Ibrahimbhai denied the execution of the two deeds and in the alternative contended with reference to the first suit No. 356 of 1955 on the basis of the earlier mortgage that he had executed a document on receiving rs. 4500/- only and not Rs. 5500/-, Rs. 1000/- having been deducted beforehand for interest, and with reference to Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 on the basis of. the second mortgage that he had executed another deed for the same consideration as is alleged with regard to that mortgage namely Rs. 7000/ -. He alleged payment of Rs. 840/- towards interest in respect of the latter claim admitted by him.

( 4 ) ISSUES were framed in the first suit bearing on the questions of husband's authority to mortgage the property belonging to defendant No. 1 Sakinabai, his having executed-the deed of mortgage in pursuance of such authority deduction of rs. 1000/- for interest before hand and legal validity of registration. In the second suit, besides the first two issues, an issue regarding payment of Rs. 840/- towards interest was framed. No issue regarding invalidity of registration was framed in the second, suit although defendant No. 2 had at any rate raised that contention.

( 5 ) THE trial Court held that defendant No. 2 Ibrahimbhai had no authority to execute the deed on behalf of his wife. It further held that consideration was paid by the plaintiff in full and the story of deduction of Rs. 10007- before hand for interest as set up by defendant No. 2 was incorrect. As regards execution it held that the mortgage-deed dated 7-4-1952 had not been duly attested within the definition of that term as defined in the Transfer of Property Act and consequently the execution was bad in law for the purpose of its being treated as a mortgage. On the question of validity of registration it held that in the absence or specific authority to Jorahimbhai to present the deed for registration the same was bad in law. On these findings the suit was decreed for Rs. 5500/- as principal and Rs. 907-8-0 as interest at 6 per cent per annum personally against Ibrahimbhai alone and the suit as on the basis of the mortgage was dismissed both against Sakinabai and Ibrammbhai in the second suit it found against defendant No. 2 as regards alleged payment of Rs. 840/- by him. In other respect the findings were similar to those in the first suit, this suit too was decreed for Rs. 7000/- as principal and Rs. 1260/- as interest personally against Ibrahimbhai and was dismissed as on a mortgage against both of them.

( 6 ) THE plaintiff has preferred appeals against both these decisions and these are appeals Nos. 4 and 3 of 1953 respectively.

( 7 ) PRINCIPAL points raised in these two appeals are two namely regarding validity