Skip to content


Balambal Ammal Vs. Arunachala Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad255
AppellantBalambal Ammal
RespondentArunachala Chetti
Cases ReferredHatcourie Pyne v. Luckey Narain Khettry I.L.R.
Excerpt:
registration act - act iii of 1877, section 77--compulsory registration--execution of document admitted--cancellation pleaded. - .....the sole point tried was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree that the deed should be registered. the instrument was presented for registration on 26th may 1892.2. the district munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract of sale was cancelled after execution of the instrument and the earnest money returned. on appeal the district judge confirmed the decision on a different ground, which he allowed to be argued though it does not appear to have been taken before the district munsif or in the grounds of appeal. the judge held that the question of the cancellation of the contract of sale was immaterial in the suit; that the only question was whether plaintiff had observed the formalities entitling her to registration of the instrument; but that, as she had taken.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sued to compel the defendant to register a conveyance executed by him to her on 26th January 1892 and to recover possession of the property comprised therein. In consequence of objections raised to the frame of the suit the plaintiff withdrew the prayer for delivery of possession and the sole point tried was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree that the deed should be registered. The instrument was presented for registration on 26th May 1892.

2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract of sale was cancelled after execution of the instrument and the earnest money returned. On appeal the District Judge confirmed the decision on a different ground, which he allowed to be argued though it does not appear to have been taken before the District Munsif or in the grounds of appeal. The Judge held that the question of the cancellation of the contract of sale was immaterial in the suit; that the only question was whether plaintiff had observed the formalities entitling her to registration of the instrument; but that, as she had taken no steps to compel defendant to appear at the registration office, she was not entitled to have the document registered, and that her suit was rightly dismissed.

3. As the prayer for the performance of the contract, viz., the delivery of the property, was withdrawn, we agree with the District Judge that the only question was whether, under the provisions of the Registration Act, the plaintiff was entitled to demand that an instrument, the execution of which was admitted, should be registered. The document was presented in time, and it has been held in Hasanalli Khan Bahadur v. Ekambaram Second Appeal No. 1541 of 1893 (unreported)., that the question to be considered in a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act is limited to the factum of execution. No time is fixed by law within which the registration of an instrument presented and accepted within four months of its execution must be completed. Sah Makhun Lall Punday v. Sah Koondun Lall L.R. 2 IndAp 210; Shama Charan Das v. Joyenoolah I.L.R. 11 Cal. 750; Hatcourie Pyne v. Luckey Narain Khettry I.L.R. 15 Cal. 538 and In re Shaik Abdul Aziz I.L.R. 11 Bom. 691

4. We must reverse the decrees of the Courts below and give plaintiff a decree directing the document to be registered under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The plaintiff is entitled to her costs in this Court and in the Lower Appellate Court, but we direct that each party pay her and his own costs in the Court of First Instance since this point was not there taken.


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