(1.) This appeal arises oat of a suit on foot of a bond. The bond is dated the 20th of September 1897. It was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The amount of principal was Rs. 500. The rate of interest was 2 per cent, per mensem, compound interest, at half yearly rests. Admittedly, Rs. 150 had been paid before the suit was instituted. The plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 6,500, principal and interest. In the Court below, the plaintiff, of his own accord, reduced the claim by Rs. 1,500. The defence was that the bond was really executed in favour of the defendant's father, that Fazal Husain Khan was merely benamidar for the defendant's father, that the defendant had paid her father the amount due on the bond, that after his death, the plaintiff got possession of the bond, and brought the present suit. There is a farther plea that the bond was not duly registered. The Court below held that the plaintiff was not benamidar for the defendant's father, Wajihullah Khan, and that the bond was duly registered. It gave the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 5,000, principal and interest, plus costs.
(2.) We will take the plea of irregular registration first. There is no doubt on the evidence that the bond was presented and registered at the same time, and that the executant, Wilaiti Begam, was also present in a doli. The stamp for the bond was also purchased on the same day that presentation and registration took place. According to the certificate, the father of the defendant was the person who presented the bond for registration. Section 32 of the Registration Act provides as follows: Except in the cases mentioned in Section 31 and Section 89, every document to be registered under this Act, whether such registration be compulsory or optional, shall be presented at the proper Registration Office, by some person, executing or claiming under the same, or, in the case of a copy of a decree or order, claiming under the decree or order, or by the representive or assign of such person, or by the agent of such person, representative or assign, duly authorised by power of attorney executed and authenticated in manner hereinafter mentioned.
(3.) It must be admitted that the defendant's father was not duly authorized by power-of-attorney within the meaning of the section, and if we are bound to hold that the presentation was in fact made by the father, the presentation would be irregular, and, therefore, under the authorities, void. No definition is given in the Act of the expression presented, and the question is whether we are entitled to hold that when the lady went herself to the Registration Office, was present, in a doli when the document was handed to the Registrar by her own father, and that she there and then admitted execution and receipt of the money, she in fact presented the document within the meaning of the section. In our opinion, the action of the lady amounted to presentation within the meaning of the section, and we accordingly hold that the learned Judge was right on this point.