PURNA CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. SMKIRAN BALA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a question under the Registration Act which does not seem to have been considered in any reported case. The facts are simple and may be briefly summarized as follows. On 8-3-1937, one Sarat Chandra Ghosh, the maternal uncle of the plaintiff, executed a deed of gift in her favour and thereby gave her a piece of land, apparently as a present on the occasion of her marriage. The land was situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar at Barangail in the district of Dacca. Shortly after the execution of the deed, Sarat died and the document could not be registered by him. On Sarat's death the plaintiff made repeated requests to the defendant, who is a brother of Sarat and his heir, to get the deed registered but he refused to do so and thereupon the plaintiff presented the deed for registration before the "Special Sub-Registrar" of Dacca. That officer, by an order dated 23-4-1938 refused registration on the ground that execution was not admitted and the document appeared to him to be of a suspicious character.

(2.) On 23-5-1938 the plaintiff brought the present suit Under Section 77, Registration Act in the Court of the First Munsiff at Manikganj and by her plaint prayed that the document might be directed to be registered in the office of the Special Sub-Registrar of Dacca. The plaint, as originally filed, was insufficiently stamped and the balance of the requisite court-fees was not paid till some date between 3 and 11 of June which was the period of a second extension of time granted for the purpose. The defendant resisted the suit on the merits, but raised no question as to the jurisdiction of the Court, The learned Munsif held against him and found the deed to be a genuine document, but in spite of the prayer in the plaint which sought registration at Dacca, directed the deed to be registered by the Sub-Registrar of Barangail, within whose jurisdiction the property was situated and who was himself within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff. On appeal by the defendant, this discrepancy was removed. The learned Fourth Subordinate Judge of Dacca upheld the finding of the Munsiff, but directed the plaint to be amended in order to bring it into conformity with the order made for registration at Barangail. No opportunity was given to the defendant to file an additional written statement and his appeal was dismissed. He came up to this Court with a second appeal Section A. No. 1743 of 1939, and obtained an order that the appeal should be re-heard after giving him an opportunity to file an additional written statement. On a re-hearing of the appeal, as directed, it was again dismissed by a successor-in office of the Judge who had heard the appeal in the first instance. Thereupon, the present second appeal was preferred by the defendant.

(3.) At the re-hearing of the appeal on remand, the question of jurisdiction was raised. In his judgment, the learned Judge does not discuss it very fully, nor dispose of it very satisfactorily. Bat he has held in effect that the amendment was properly allowed and since the property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Barangail, there is no reason why registration by that officer could not be directed and why the suit could not be brought in the Court at Manikganj, although the deed might have been presented for registration before the special Sub-Registrar of Dacca.