HUSSEIN ABDUL REHMAN AND CO Vs. LAKHMICHAND KHETSEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Fawcett in a suit brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiff filed the suit for an order under Section 77 for registration of the document in question, dated October 18, 1922 (Exh. A). It purports to have been executed by Hussein Abdul Rehman & Co. to Lakhmichand Khetsey, The material portion of that document is in these terms:-- We have taken from you on rent a godown bearing No. three. The Port Trust Number of which is ..in the new Rice Market at Carnac Bunder Port Trust Bombay. We have taken the same on rent by fixing the rent thereof at Rs. 601 per month. We are duly to pay you the said rent as accrues due each month. The period in respect of the said godown is fixed to be from the 1 of Kartak Sud and of the Samvat year 1979 to the 30 of Chaitar Vad of the Samvat year 1980 (i. e., from October 21, 1922, to May 3, 1924) i. e, nineteen months including the intercalary month.

(2.) Apparently the executant took possession of the godown and remained in possession for some time, but in March 1923 he seems to have given up the idea of retaining it in pursuance of this document. Thereafter the document was presented for registration for the first time on June 7, 1923, after paying the necessary stamp and penalty. The Sub-Registrar on that day made an order refusing registration of the document under Section 20 of the Indian Registration Act. He refused to accept it on the ground that the endorsement on the document made after it was executed referring to the cadastral survey number was not signed by the executant, but was signed only by the person to whom the document was executed. The reasons for this order are stated in Exh. F which show that the document was presented by Lakhmichand Khetsey on payment of penalty under Section 25. Lakhmichand Khetsey appealed to the Registrar from this order. The Registrar made the following order on July 26:-- The order of refusal by the Sub-Registrar is not proper under the section, and I therefore set it aside.

(3.) The document came again before the Sub-Registrar who made an order on August 13, 1923, refusing registration of the deed under Section 21 of the Indian Registration Act. In that order also the Sub-Registrar refers to the fact that "the schedule of the property subsequently added is not signed by the executant and has no binding effect on the contract." The said Lakhmichand Khetsey again appealed to the Registrar who made the following order on September 25:-- In the present case the Sub-Registrar has exercised his discretion given to him by Section 21 of the Registration Act and has refused to accept the lease for registration. I cannot therefore interfere with the order of refusal.