Skip to content


Gopinath Adhikary Vs. Gadadhar Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR33Cal1020
AppellantGopinath Adhikary
RespondentGadadhar Das
Excerpt:
registration act (iii of 1377) section 77 - decree directing registration--decree not providing for period for registration--non-presentation of document within thirty days of first court's decree directing registration--registration, validity of. - .....the passing of the decree on appeal. the defendant in that suit, that is, (he plaintiff in the present suit, brings this suit, asking for a declaration that the registration was bad. lecause it was not effected within thirty days after the passing of the first decree, i do not think this question really arises. tie decree simply directed (he registration of the document: it was not conditional upon the document being presented for registration within thirty days, and there is no positive enactment in the section that the document must be presented for registration within thirty days of the passing of the decree. no objection was taken in the former suit, either by way of appeal or otherwise, to the form of the decree; and i do not see, as long as the decree stands, how we can go.....
Judgment:

Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. This is a case of some peculiarity and novelty. The defendant brought a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act seeking for a decree directing that a certain document might be registered: and he obtained a decree against, the present plaintiff--a decree simply directing the document to he registered: it said nothing about its presentation for registration within thirty days from the passing of the decree. The section only authorizes the institution of such a suit: nothing more. But to give effect to what would appear to be the intention of the section the decree made under it ought, I think, to provide that the document should be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of the decree. That, I think, is what is meant by the words 'a suit for a decree directing the document to be registered in such office, if it be duly presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of such decree.' The section, however, is silent as to what the form of the decree should be. After the defendant had obtained this decree, the present plaintiff appealed, and that appeal was unsuccessful. The defendant did not present the document for registration within thirty days after the passing of the first Court's decree, but did present it for registration within thirty days after the passing of the decree on appeal. The defendant in that suit, that is, (he plaintiff in the present suit, brings this suit, asking for a declaration that the registration was bad. Lecause it was not effected within thirty days after the passing of the first decree, I do not think this question really arises. Tie decree simply directed (he registration of the document: it was not conditional upon the document being presented for registration within thirty days, and there is no positive enactment in the section that the document must be presented for registration within thirty days of the passing of the decree. No objection was taken in the former suit, either by way of appeal or otherwise, to the form of the decree; and I do not see, as long as the decree stands, how we can go behind it, and incorporate into it a condition, which the Court making the decree did not impose. As I hare pointed out, there is no positive enactment in the section that the document must be Presented for registration within thirty days after the passing of the decree.

2. The merits of the case ore entirely in favour of the defendant; and we agree in the judgment of both the lower Courts.

3. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

Brett, J.

4. I agree.


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