RAMPRASAD Vs. PANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a first appeal by the defendant in a suit for possession of the property left by one Murlidhar Bijabergi deceased of Pali.

(2.) THE respondent Pannalal sued the appellant Ram Prasad on the allegations that the respondent was adopted by Murlidhar on 'magsar Vadi 14, Smt. 1992 (25-11-1935) and he had executed a deed of adoption on the same date. It was alleged that Murlidhar died on 'magsar Sudi' 1, 'smt. ' 1992 and his widow remained in possession of Murlidhar's property till her death on 'man Sudi' 7, 'smt. ' 1996 and that thereafter, the plaintiff being away from Pali, the defendant wrongfully took possession of the movable and immovable property of the deceased Murlidhar valued at Rs. 15,300/- mentioned in Schedules A to E annexed to the plaint.

(3.) THE present case is, however, more in accord with the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in -- 'bharat Indu v. Hamid Ali Khan', AIR 1921 PC 93 (E ). In that case, the executant of the document was ill and he sent the deed by a servant, who was not duly authorised, to the Sub-Registrar to be registered. THE Sub-Registrar received the deed on the 4th of November and went personally to the house of the executant on the 6th. He read out the contents of the document to the executant who admitted the execution and ordered that after registration the document might be given to the person in whose favour the document was executed. Lord Phillimore in the course of the judgment said that it was an irregularity on the part of the Sub-Registrar to accept the document as presented by a servant, and to enter, as he ultimately did, the presentation as made on the 4th November instead of the 6th. It was observed that if all that had happened had been that the servant had come as a messenger with the document in his hand from his master, and requested the attendance of the Sub-Registrar at his master's house, because his master was ill, and if the Sub-Registrar instead of lotting the servant carry the document back, had carried it himself, and on reaching the master's house had said to him "do you present this document? If so, do you admit its execution?" no objection could have been taken. THE 'case of Jambu Prasact (C)' was distinguished by his Lordship because in 'bharat Indu's case (E)' it was the person who desired to present and purported to present who took the further step and admitted the execution. It was accordingly held that the presentation by the servant was inoperative but not injurious to the validity of any subsequent presentation and the master was the real presenter on the 6th of November.