MOHAMMED EWAZ Vs. BIRJ LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit brought by the Appellants, the sons and heirs of Share Mahammed, the vendee under a deed of sale which on the face of it purports to have been made by three persons, Moburuh Jan, and her two sons, Hyat Mohammed and Salamutoollali. The sale was of certain shares in two mouzahs, the shares which each held not being speeified. It must be taken, however, on this appeal, that although the amount of the shares to which each of the parties was entitled is not yet ascertained, the shares were held in such a manner that each might separately dispose of his own shares. The Respondents, who arc purchasers under a subsequent deed of sale, and who impeach the deed of sale to Shere Maltammed, contend that the last-mentioned deed cannot be read in evidence because it was not properly registered. The deed has been in point of fact registered, and it lies upon the Respondents who impeach that registration to shew the facts which invalidate it. They have not proved that the shares were held jointly, nor does it appear that that point was made in either of the appeals below.

(2.) THE subordinate Judge of Bareilly, and the Judge of Bareilly to whom the case went from the subordinate Judge on appeal, found that the mother had not executed the deed, but that the two sons had done so, and a decree was given by the subordinate Judge, which was affirmed by the Judge, in these terms: " That a decree be given to the Plaintiff for the completion of the sale deed dated the 14th of January, 1874, to the extent of the rights of Hyat Mohammed and Salamtitoollah, Defendants, in the shares of mouzahs Tah and Kishanpur Maupur against the said Defendants and the vendees, and the claim for possession of the said shares, and for the rights of Mmmmub Mobaruk Jan, be dismissed." That decree may be taken to be a declaration that the Appellants, as the heirs of the vendee, are entitled to the rights, whatever they were, of Hyai Mohammed and Salamutoollah in these mouzahs. The decree goes no further, it refuses to decree possession; and, from the reasons given by the Judge; for his decree, it would seem that the amount of the shares to which each was entitled had not been proved before him.

(3.) IT appears that the deed was brought to the registrar on the 15th of January; the vendors did not attend, and it became necessary to summon them. The two sons appeared on the following day, and admitted their own execution, but denied that of their mother. The deed purports to have been executed by the two sons, each in his own handwriting, and by the mother, Mus-sumat Mobaruh Jan, by the hand of Hyat Mohammed. The sons admitted their own signatures and execution, but stated that their mother had not assented to the sale. The sub-registrar made the endorsements which are found upon the deed, and which consist of three separate paragraphs. The first endorsement was made on the 15th of January, the day on which the deed was presented for registration, and is to the effect that the deed between the hours of ten and eleven was presented for registration in the office of the officiating sub-registrar by Chotelal, the agent of the vendee, who also applied for the compulsory attendance of the vendors.