CHITTOORI CHINNAMMI Vs. IMMANNI VENKAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are from the same order and raise the same question, namely, the validity of the registration of a document, Exhibit I, dated the 17 of March, 1921, purporting to be a relinquishment by the plaintiff and 1 defendant, the two elder sisters, in favour of the 2nd defendant, the youngest sister, of a mortgage right taken in the names of all the three. The question arose in a partition suit brought by the plaintiff against her two sisters of their father's property. It is not relevant to this appeal to mention the other disputes in that suit. It is sufficient to say that the appeal to the lower appellate Court was brought by the plaintiff concerning two points, the first relating to the question whether she was entitled to the benefit of a legacy given to her under her father's will which the defendants said had been redeemed by a subsequent gift. This was decided by both the Lower Courts against the plaintiff. The other point in dispute in appeal was about Exhibit I. The Court of first instance held that the plaintiff and the 1 defendant who had executed the relinquishment were bound by it and that the objections raised by the plaintiff on the ground (1) that it was brought about by fraud and misrepresentation, and (2) that its registration was invalid because the presentation of the document before the Sub-Registrar and of the appeal before the Registrar were invalid according to the Registration Act, are not well founded.

(2.) In appeal the learned District Judge upheld the first Court's finding as to fraud and misrepresentation affecting Exhibit I but differed from the first Court in its opinion about the validity of its registration. He held first, though not without hesitation, that the presentation of the document by the 2nd defendant (the present appellant) before the Sub-Registrar might be valid although she was a minor at the time, but secondly that the presentation of the appeal from the order refusing registration to the Registrar was invalid because it was made three days after the 2nd defendant had attained majority and that the appeal was filed by her husband purporting to act as guardian when in fact his authority as guardian had ceased. On this ground the learned Judge held the registration of Exhibit I invalid and therefore the document itself inoperative and sent the case down to enable the plaintiff to get her proper share of the mortgage right which still belonged to her.

(3.) In these appeals the only question which has been argued is the last mentioned one relating to the validity of the registration of Exhibit I.