Beni Madhab Mitter Vs. Khatir Mondul - Court Judgment |
| LegalCrystal Citation | legalcrystal.com/854251 |
| Subject | Civil |
| Court | Kolkata |
| Decided On | Mar-07-1887 |
| Judge | Mitter and ;Beverley, JJ. |
| Reported in | (1887)ILR14Cal449 |
| Appellant | Beni Madhab Mitter |
| Respondent | Khatir Mondul |
| Cases Referred | Mukhun Loll Pandey v. Koondun Lall
|
Excerpt:
registration act, section 60 - certificate of registration--document registered by officer having no jurisdiction--admissibility of evidence. - .....that the document was duly registered by the particular officer whose signature it bears, but it has been shown that that officer had no jurisdiction to register it. that being so the document was not duly registered within the provisions of the registration act. a decision was referred to in the course of the argument, ram coomar sen v. khoda newaz 7 c.l.r. 223, but we find that that decision is entirely based upon a privy council judgment mukhun loll pandey v. koondun lall 5 b.l.r. 228 and the privy council decision does not support the contention put forward in this case. there the document which was in question was registered by an officer who had jurisdiction to register it, but in this case the document has been registered by an officer who had no jurisdiction to register it......
Judgment:Mitter abd Beverley, JJ.
1. We think that the judgments of the lower Courts in this case are correct. under Section 60 the certificate is adducible in evidence to prove that the document was duly registered by the particular officer whose signature it bears, but it has been shown that that officer had no jurisdiction to register it. That being so the document was not duly registered within the provisions of the Registration Act. A decision was referred to in the course of the argument, Ram Coomar Sen v. Khoda Newaz 7 C.L.R. 223, but we find that that decision is entirely based upon a Privy Council judgment Mukhun Loll Pandey v. Koondun Lall 5 B.L.R. 228 and the Privy Council decision does not support the contention put forward in this case. There the document which was in question was registered by an officer who had jurisdiction to register it, but in this case the document has been registered by an officer who had no jurisdiction to register it. That being so, the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee upon which the decision proceeds are not applicable to this case. We dismiss these appeals with costs.