MT. CHHITIA BAI Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVERYBODY concerned in this case forgot the existence of Section 87, Registration Act, till they were reminded of it by the-Court during the argument of the appeal. That was due to the fact that in 1914 a Judge of this Court, who is one of us, forgot it in deciding an appeal against the third defendant in this case in a judgment of which a copy has been filed. The section does, however, exist, and entirely meets the objection to the validity of the registration of the mortgage bond on which the plaintiffs sue.

(2.) IF further authority than the plain? words of the section were required for this view it could be found in the judgment of the Privy Council in Muhammad Ewaz v. Birj Lal [1875] 1 All. 465. Section 45(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1898, which appears un changed as Section 49(2), Tenancy Act 1920, lays down the way in which a registering officer must statisfy. himself that proper sanction has been given to the transfer of the right to occupy sir land before registering a document purporting to transfer that right, that is to say it regulates his procedure and nothing else.

(3.) IN this view, the other matters in the case do not require much discussion, except the order of the lower Court in respect of costs. The learned District Judge-would be right in holding that Hazarimal was not estopped from contesting the validity of the mortgage by his statement recorded in Ex. P. 9, if he were correct in saying that he only agreed that the property should be subject to any claim that could be established on the mortgage. But the document shows that he not only, admitted that a sum of Rs. 11,947-4-0 was then due on the mortgage but agreed to buy the property as liable for that amount.