SYED YAWAR BAKHT CHOWDHURY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals against convictions and sentences under Secs.467 and 467/109, I.P.C., and under Section 81, Registration Act. The facts are rather complicated and need to be set out in some detail, in order that the arguments advanced before us may be properly appreciated. Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri was in debt to Debendra Kumar Roy to the extent of Rs. 5001-3-3; Mt. Kaniz Ahammed Choudhurani, wife of Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri was in debt to the same creditor to the extent of Rs. 336; two minor sons of the late Afroz Bakht Chudhuri, brother of Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhury were in debt to the same creditor to the extent of Rupees 13, 162-12-9; the total debt of these members of the family to this creditor thus amounting to Rs. 18,500. The creditor had obtained decrees in respect of these debts. In order to satisfy this creditor's claims, it was settled that certain properties belonging to (1) Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri, (2) Mt. Kanij Ahammed Choudhurani, (3) Najamannessa Bibi, another wife of Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri, (4) the two minor sons of the late Afroz Bakht Choudhury, (5) Abdul Matin Choudhury, (6) Mohammad. Motasin Choudhury and (7) Jamilunnessa Bibi sister of Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri should be transferred to the creditor. The value of these properties was estimated at Rs. 20,000, and it was decided that the creditor vendee should pay in cash to Jamilunnessa Bibi the sum of Rs. 1500 and that the remainder of the consideration money should be retained by him in full satisfaction of the debts specified above.

(2.) Accordingly a deed of sale was drawn up on 10 February 1936. As the vendors were numerous and lived at different places, the execution of the document by all the adult vendors was not completed until the e April, 1936. The two minor sons of the late Afroz Bakht Choudhuri were wards of a guardian appointed by the District Judge of Sylhet under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act. The sanction of the District Judge was therefore necessary before the certificated guardian could consent to execute the document on behalf of the minor. The document was presented to the District Judge on 30 April 1936 and his sanction was sought for. The document was returned by the District Judge's office on 29th May 1936 after sanction had been granted. On 9 June 1936 the document was presented at the Balaganj Registry office by Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri. The latter admitted execution of the document on his own behalf and on behalf of his two wives and his two minor nephews. The Sub-Registrar granted the usual receipt to Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri who made over the same to the vendee Debendra Kumar Roy. The document was then sent by Registered post from the Sub-Registrar Balaganj to the Sub-Registrar Habigunj in order that the admission of Abdul Matin Choudhuri might be obtained. The latter admitted execution, and the document was returned to the Sub-Registrar, Balagunj, again by registered post. On three occasions the Sub-Registrar of Balaganj was taken to the house of Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri in order that the admission of execution by Jamilunnessa Bibi might be obtained. On the first two occasions, the Sub-Registrar was unable to meet the lady. On the third occasion, i.e. on 16 August 1936, Jamilunnessa Bibi denied execution of the document. In the meantime, on 25 July 1936 execution had been admitted by Mohammad Motasin Choudhury. On 7 September 1936, the Sub-Registrar refused registration in so far as Jamilunnessa Bibi was concerned.

(3.) On 18 September 1936 the vendee, Debendra Kumar Roy appealed to the District Registrar against the order refusing registration, and prayed that the document be called for from the Sub-Registrar. The document reached the District Registrar's Office on 2nd October 1936. The vendee on examining the document came to the conclusion that certain alterations had been made therein. He accordingly applied for certified copy of the document and after obtaining that copy he filed a petition of complaint before the Magistrate on 17 October 1936 accusing some of the executants of the documents, and others of forgery and conspiracy to forge. He alleged that the original document provided for the sale to him of all the remaining interest of the executants in Schedule 1, of all their interest in Schedule 2, and of the entire 5 annas 2 1/2 gandas interest in Schedule 3 which belonged to Syed Yawar Bakht Choudhuri and his two wives Mt. Kanij Ahammed Choudhurani and Najamannessa Bibi; whereas the document in the condition in which it reached the District Registrar's Office, provided merely for the transfer of 2 1/2 gandas share in these properties to the vendee. He alleged further that pp. 4 and 52 of the original document had been removed and other pages substituted in their place, and that minor verbal alterations had been made in other parts of the document. While the magisterial enquiry was proceeding, there was a talk of compromise between the parties. Two more documents were executed in favour of the vendee, the sum of Rs. 1500 was paid to Jamilunnessa Bibi, and the latter admitted execution of the original document; the Registration appeal was allowed; and the vendee, Debendra Kumar Roy applied to the Magistrate for permission to withdraw from the prosecution.