PUTTANANJE GOWDA Vs. NANJE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellant under Section 77 of the Registration Act for a decree directing the registration of a document purporting to be a sale deed in favour of the appellant. Various questions arose for consideration, but the learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that it had been filed beyond 30 days from the date of the order of the District Registrar refusing registration. The Civil Judge, Hassan, has confirmed the decision on the same ground as also on the ground that the appeal preferred by the plaintiff (appellant) before the District Registrar was not an appeal filed in accordance with law arid was itself barred by limitation. In this matter he took a view contrary to that of the learned Munsif. He has, however, vouchsafed no reasons in support of his view. As regards the suit itself it is seen that the order of the District Registrar refusing registration purports to have been made on 13-8-1956. The suit was filed on 15-9-1956. The plaintiff's contention was that the endorsement issued by the District Registrar intimating his refusal to register the document reached the appellant's advocate on 16-8-1956, and the suit having been filed within 30 days from that date it was in time.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the appellant relies upon the decisions reported in Thammayya v. Surappa, 22 Mys CCR 39. The brief judgment in that case states:

(3.) The learned Advocate for the appellant has also relied upon a case reported in Swaminathan v. Lakashmanan Chettiar, AIR 1930 Mad 490. It is observed by Venkatasubba Rao J., in that decision: