KHALIL-UD-DIN AHMAD Vs. BANNI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought on foot of a mortgage, dated the 11th of July, 1893. Various defences were pleaded, and amongst other things execution and consideration were denied. The court below has found nearly all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. It has found that the bond was duly executed by Musammat Banni Bibi, the mortgagor, and that the consideration was duly paid to her. The court, however, somewhat reluctantly found that the bond had not been duly registered. This question of registration was the question which came before a Bench of this Court. It appears that on the day on which the mortgage purports to have been registered, the husband of Musammat Banni Bibi made an application to the sub-registrar of Bareilly tahsil. The actual application is not before us but there is endorsed on the bond the following note: This document was presented by Muiz-ud-din Ahmad on Wednesday, the 12th July, 1893, between 8 and 9 a. m., in the office of the sub-registrar of pargana and district Bareilly. He stated that Musammat Banni Bibi, the executant of the document, was a pardanashin lady. The document may be attested from the Musammat at her residence by means of a commission. As the Musammat above named resides within the local limits of the municipality, this document may be sent to the departmental sub-registrar of Bareilly for attestation (Sd.) Wasi-ud-din, sub-registrar. (Sd.) Muiz-ud-din Ahmad, the person presenting this document, in autograph.

(2.) It next appears that the departmental sub-registrar of Bareilly went the same day to the lady s house. The lady was duly identified and she admitted execution of the deed. The money was paid over, and the departmental sub-registrar sent the document to the sub-registrar of tahsil Bareilly, who registered the same. It further appears from the endorsement upon the bond that the person who "presented" the document for registration to the sub-registrar of tahsil Bareilly was the husband. It is clear that the sub-registrar understood the husband to be the person who was "presenting" the document to him for registration. In the court below and in this Court it was admitted that when Muiz-ud-din Ahmad, the husband, "presented" the document for registration he was not authorized in the manner prescribed by Sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act of 1877, which was then in force. It was, however, strongly contended that what subsequently happened at the residence of the lady amounted to a good "presentation" within the meaning of the Act, and that the document ought therefore to be considered as having been duly registered.

(3.) At the first hearing of the appeal in this Court it was never pointed out that the gentleman who attended at the residence of the lady was not the same sub- registrar who had in the first place received the document from her husband, and the question which the Court considered it had before it was whether or not the lady having admitted the execution and communicated to an officer competent to accept and register the document her desire to have it registered, the document was not sufficiently "presented" within the meaning of the Act. The Bench before whom the appeal came considered that it was desirable that the question should be decided by a larger Bench, and the case was accordingly referred to the Bench as at present constituted.