AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 364 wordsWe agree with Seshagiri Aiyar, J., that this case falls within Section 77 of the Registration Act. This is in agreement with the interpretation
adopted by our Court in Narasimha Nayanim Varu v. Ramalinga Row (1899) 10 M.L.J. 104 and Subramanian Patter Kariakar''s son Sivaram
Patter Kariakar Vs. Edathil Madhathil V. Krishna Aiyar (died) and Another, and we also may point out that the rules framed under the Act are in
accordance with this view.
A contrary view, it is true, has prevailed in Gangava v. Sayava ILR (1899) B. 699 but the fallacy of the reasoning in that case, if we may say so
with respect, lies in thinking that there is any substantial distinction between refusal to accept a document for registration and a refusal to register
within the meaning of Section 77 read with Ss. 76 and 72. Here the District Registrar had in fact refused to direct registration of the document and
none the less so because he made no enquiry as to whether the document was executed or not, proceeding on the ground that the document was
in his opinion presented out of time.
We may mention that a ruling referred to at the bar in Kunhinmu v. Biyyathamma ILR (1884) M. 585 can be distinguished on the ground that
the appeal to the Registrar in that case having been presented after the expiry of the prescribed period, it was considered as if there was no appeal
and admittedly where there has been no appeal to the Registrar no suit will lie u/s 77. There are also some observations in Balambal Ammal v.
Arunachala Chetti ILR (1894) M. 255 and Veeramma v. Abbiah ILR (1894) M. 99 which might be taken to support the interpretation put upon
Section 77 in Gangava v. Sayava ILR (1899) B. 699 but they are in the nature of obiter dicta.
It is also argued that the suit is barred. But time should be computed from the order of the Registrar, dated the 1st February 1913, when on
appeal, he refused to direct the registration and not from his previous order refusing to extend time.
The appeal is dismissed.