Skip to content


Syed Munawar HusaIn Vs. YasIn Bibi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1924)ILR46All743
AppellantSyed Munawar Husain
RespondentYasIn Bibi and ors.
Cases ReferredBharat Indu v. Hamid Ali Khan
Excerpt:
acts - 1908--xvi (indian registration act), sections 32 and 33--registration of document--presentation--deed handed over to sub-registrar by husband of executant--registration actually made at executant's house. - .....act. but the difficulty of considering that question of law in this particular case is that the learned judge has definitely held that the act of the husband in going to the sub-registrar and handing over the deed and asking him to go to the house of the pardanashin lady to have it executed, was not presentation. he has found as a fact that the presentation did not take place until the sub-registrar went to the house of the lady. it is admitted that if that is true, the decision of the learned district judge is correct. as lord buckmaster, in the course of argument in the privy council, in the case of bharat indu v. hamid ali khan (1920) i.l.r. 42 all. 487 : 18 a.l.j. 717, (the material passage occurs on page 718) says, 'presentation is a question of fact requiring no formality. the.....
Judgment:

Walsh, Acting C.J. and Ryves, J.

1. We are of opinion that no question of law arises in this appeal. In order to support the argument of the learned vakil on the point of law which he submitted to us, it is necessary for his case that presentation should have been made at the office of the Sub- , Registrar. Then the point would have arisen. If presentation had been made at the office of the Sub-Registrar, it would have followed that it had been made by somebody under a power of attorney which was not duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But the difficulty of considering that question of law in this particular case is that the learned Judge has definitely held that the act of the husband in going to the Sub-Registrar and handing over the deed and asking him to go to the house of the pardanashin lady to have it executed, was not presentation. He has found as a fact that the presentation did not take place until the Sub-Registrar went to the house of the lady. It is admitted that if that is true, the decision of the learned District Judge is correct. As Lord Buckmaster, in the course of argument in the Privy Council, in the case of Bharat Indu v. Hamid Ali Khan (1920) I.L.R. 42 All. 487 : 18 A.L.J. 717, (the material passage occurs on page 718) says, 'Presentation is a question of fact requiring no formality. The servant (and if we substitute the word ' husband ' instead of ' servant ' in this case, the cases become similar) really wrongly handed over the document to the Registrar. He should merely have told him to go to the house.' Lord Phillimore, in the course of delivering their Lordships'' opinion, said that the handling over by Wazir Beg, that is the servant, was inoperative but not injurious to the subsequent presentation.

2. So the learned Judge had the support of the Privy Council for taking the view of the fact of presentation which he has done. In other words, he has found a fact which is binding upon us. There was evidence to entitle him to do so, and we cannot interfere. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //