RASHID CHENOY Vs. RAJA PRATAPGIRJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal in a civil case. The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the registration effected is valid in law. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates of the parties and record our opinion below;

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the Appellants argued that the registration effected is infructuous in law inasmuch as it has been effected by the Assistant Registrar of the suit property which was beyond the limits of the Hyderabad City; that the Registration Act delimits the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar to the precincts of the Hyderabad City; that the only exception in the Act is in Section 24 (ii) and is in favour of the Registrar & not in that of the Assistant Registrar, and that that Section 87 only cures defects in procedure and not defects of jurisdiction and, hence, as in this case the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction outside the City, he could not have registered the mortgage deed and as such, the registration is infructuous in law. He has cited the following: cases.

(3.) THE learned commentator, Sir Brojendra La Mitter, in his commentary on the Indian Registration Act on Section 35 page 162 after quoting the above passage from, 2 Ind App 210 (H) has remarked: