IMAM BANDI BIBI Vs. UDIT UPADHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in the case out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The plaintiff asserts that the defendants-appellants sold to her certain immovable property and executed a formal conveyance of the same to her; that when the conveyance was presented for registration, the defendants-appellants denied execution, whereupon the Sub-Registrar refused, to register it. This was on November 15th, 1900. The next incident in the case is that the plaintiff respondent on December 17th, 1900, made an application to the Registrar under the provisions of Section 73 of the Registration Act, No. III of 1877. The application was clearly made two days beyond the time limited by that section, and the Registrar therefore summarily rejected it. The present suit was then instituted underline permission given by Section 77 of the Act. The plaintiff respondent prays for a declaration of her right to have the conveyance mentioned above registered.

(2.) The Muusif held that the suit was not maintainable. On appeal the District Judge of Azamgarh reversed the decision of the Munsif and remanded the record to the first Court under Section 562 of the Civil P. C. to be decided on the merits. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Now it seems to me that the decision of the learned District Judge is entirely wrong, and that he failed to comprehend the question he had to decide. That question was--had the Munsif decided rightly or not in holding that this suit would not lie? There was no question of limitation raised in the suit. Admittedly the suit was within time.