FATTECHAND ANANDRAM MARWADI Vs. UMAJI VALUJI MAHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law, that arises in this appeal, relates to the interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. The facts which have given rise to it are these. Apparently a sale-deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants on November 20, 1919. It was presented by the plaintiff on March 20, 1920, for registration to the Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar accepted it and issued notice to the defendants. The defendants appeared on April 7, 1920, and they made a statement which may be briefly described as admission of execution subject to the proviso that the sale was subject to the agreement that the plaintiff was to reconvey the property on payment of the amount mentioned in the sale- deed. He also accepted in accordance with the rules under the Indian Registration Act the penalty which was leviable in consequence of the admission of execution of the document not having been made within the time allowed by law under Section 34 of the Indian Registration Act, subject to the sanction of the Registrar who would have power under the proviso to that section in case of urgent necessity or unavoidable accident to condone the delay. The Registrar did not sanction the acceptance of the penalty and did not condone the delay, with the result that on April 18, 1920, the Sub-Registrar endorsed on the document his order refusing to register it on the ground that the Registrar had not given the necessary sanction for accepting the fine and for registering the document. Thereafter the plaintiff made an application to the Registrar, but he saw no reason to revise the order already passed by him and refused the application on May 5.

(2.) The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on May 19, 1920, under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act for a decree directing the document to be registered. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claim, and the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was outside the scope of Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, and therefore not maintainable.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and the First Class Subordinate Judge, with appellate powers, who heard the appeal, came to the same conclusion and affirmed the decree of the trial Court.