SHRIPATHI LAXMAN KSHIRSAGAR Vs. BALVANTRAO KRISHNA CHITNIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in these appeals is a very technical one. The document which required to be registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, as one of the parties was an agriculturist, was written and executed before the Sub- Registrar according to the provisions under Section 63A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The parties in whose favour the document was taken were described as Balvantrao, Shankarrao and Ganpatrao Chitnis, residing at Nigdi, by their Vahivatdar Rango Vislinu Aphale. He signed the declaration required by Rule 23 of the rules made under Section 61 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act, as the Vahivatdar of those persons in his own handwriting. Objection was taken at the hearing of the suit, which was filed on this document that it had not been proved that it had been properly registered.

(2.) The suit was accordingly dismissed in the trial Court. But by the appellate Court an order was passed that the decree dismissing the suit should be set aside and the case remanded for trial.

(3.) We think the whole question turns upon whether Section 57 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act requires that the party in whose favour a document is executed is bound to appear at the time of execution before the Registrar, and that if he does not appear, the document cannot be considered as capable of being properly registered. Whatever was intended by the provisions of Secs.57 and 59 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act, which are incorporated in Section 53A, the only persons who are bound to appear before the Registrar are the persons who intend to execute any instrument to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. Though the 3 para of Section 57 of the Act provides that "every executant of any such instrument shall appear in person before the Village- registrar: but every other party thereto may appear either in person or by any agent, being his relative, servant or dependent, whom he has duly furnished with a power of attorney," if such other party is not bound to be present under the 1st para of the section, then it cannot be said that the document is not duly registered according to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, if he does not appear. It may be that that was not the intention of the framers of the Act. But we can only read the Act as it stands. We cannot read into it words, which are not there, merely by implication, or because we think it advisable that those words should be included.