KUPPA GOUNDAR Vs. JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR - III

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Joint Sub-Registrar, III, Salem, dated 28-11-1959 passed under the following circumstances:

(2.) ONE Ponnuswami Gounder filed Original Enquiry No. 1 of 1959 before the Joint Sub-Registrar III, Salem, claiming compulsory registration of a mortgage document dated 12-2-1959 under S. 73 of the Registration Act, 1908. His case was that the mortgage document was executed by on Ellappa Gounder and his brother, Kuppa Gounder (Ellappa Gounder also acting as guardian of his minor son, Thangavelu) having received consideration of Rs. 4600 in cash. It was stated by this Ponnuswami Gounder that after receiving consideration and after executing the mortgage bond referred to, the executants promised to have the document registered on or before 16-2-1959. Finding that the executants did not keep up their promise and fulfill their obligation to have the document registered. Ponnuswami issued a registered notice through his lawyer on 30-3-1959 which was received by the executants on 6-4-1959. No reply was sent to this notice. Thereafter Ponnuswami filed a petition for compulsory registration on 14-51959 before the Joint Sub Registrar, III, Salem, who issued summons to the executants to appear before him on 26-5-199 to admit the document and have it registered. The respondents received the summons but failed to appear before the Joint Sub Registrar. Alleging that the executants willfully absented themselves before the Joint Sub Registrar, Ponnuswami filed an original petition, O. E. No. 1 of 1959 in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking an enquiry into the matter as provided for therein.

(3.) DURING the enquiry the Joint sub Registrar felt that having regard to the contentions raised before him the evidence of one Sennimalai father-in-law of Ponnuswami, the person in whose favour the mortgage was executed was necessary to which course there was apparently opposition on the part of Kuppanna the joint executant of the mortgage document. As neither side was willing to his being examined the Joint Sub Registrar thought it fit to issue summons to Sennimalai to give evidence before him as court witness. The order of the Joint Sub Registrar in so far as it is material is as follows: "the court witness Sennimalai is a very important man in connection with this case but he has not been examined either by the applicant or the counter petitioner. I consider his evidence important to find out the truth in this case. "Kuppa Gounden feeling himself aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Sub Registrar has filed the above writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Joint Sub Registrar to pass such an order.