JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the defendant Mt. Bibi Batul from a decree for sale passed against her on foot of a mortgage deed. The mortgage-deed was executed by Zakir Husain the lady's son as general agent. Ha acted under the authority given to him under a power executed by the lady in his favour on 18th November, 1908. It was a simple mortgage and executed on 15th January 1910, for a sum of Rs. 6,250. The consideration was made up as follows:

2. Left with the mortgagee for payment to Kedar Nath Sahu for money due on a mortgage-deed dated 29th April 1905, executed by Ghulam Husain Khan husband of Mt. Bibi Batul... Rs. 5,050.

3. Received previously to defray costs of stamp etc. connected with this deed

... ... ... Rs. 50.

4. Deducted by the mortgagee for money due on a registered bond executed by Zakir Husain as agent of Bibi Batul

... ... ... Rs. 100.

5. Received in cash in the presence of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration

... ... ... Rs. 1,050.

6. In the body of the deed it was recited that the bond on which Rs. 100 was due was executed by the declarant on behalf of his mother. The registration endorsement shows that cash was paid to Zakir Husain (Rs. 1,000) in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. We have only got a copy of the document and possibly Rs. 1,000 is a mistake for Rs. 1,050.

7. The property mortgaged was 1/6th share out of 6 villages situated in pargana Miranpur out of the taluqa Manyarpur. The lady had five sisters and the taluqa was inherited by her and her sisters from their father. She had therefore 1/6th share in the taluqa.

8. Subsequent to the mortgage there was a partition between the six sisters and instead of 1/6th share in the taluqa Mt. Bibi Batul was allotted 14 entire villages. Out of the share of the six villages mortgaged only Khokhipur came to the share of the defendant lady while the other five villages of which the shares were mortgaged fell in the lots of the other co-sharers.

9. The learned Judge of the lower Court gave a decree for the full amount with interest by sale of all the 14 villages which were allotted to the defendant lady at partition. The bond rate of interest, Rs. 1/8 per cent, per mensem simple, was allowed.

10. In appeal to this Court the following grounds were urged:

1. That it was not proved that the lady who was pardanashin executed the power-of-attorney in favour of her son after fully understanding the contents of the document and the effect thereof.

2. That according to the terms of the power-of-attorney Zakir Husain had not the authority to execute the mortgage-deed in suit.

3. That Zakir Husain had not the power to transfer property for payment of a debt not due from the lady.

4. That the decree for sale of all the 14 villages was inequitable and that only a village or two ought to have been ordered to be sold proportionate to the 1-6th share in the five villages mortgaged to the plaintiffs.

5. That the suit for a money decree was time-barred.

11. There is ample evidence to prove that the lady executed the power-of-attorney after fully understanding its contents and the effect thereof. The marginal witnesses were Lal Bahadur and Tafazzul Husain and the scribe was Albeli Prasad. All these persons are dead. The lady was identified at the time of the registration by another son of hers Ghulam Abbas and her brother Asghar Ali, Asghar Ali is dead but Ghulam Abbas is alive and was not produced as a witness on behalf of the lady. One Sadiq Husain was produced as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs. Possibly his testimony is not reliable as the occasion for his presence at the time of registration is not well established. There however remains the unrebutted testimony of the Sub-Registrar Ali Ahmad who was examined on commission. The registration endorsement which this witness verifies makes note of the procedure adopted by the Sub-Registrar in great detail. More than once this Bench has called the attention of counsel to the desirability of getting registration