LACHMIPAT SING DUGAR Vs. MIRZA KHAIRAT ALI
LAWS(CAL)-1869-9-3
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 02,1869

LACHMIPAT SING DUGAR Appellant
VERSUS
MIRZA KHAIRAT ALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) We are of opinion that the document is admissible as a bond, simply for the purpose of enforcing against the obligor personally the payment of the money secured by it; but that without registration it is not admissible as evidence to prove that the obligee was entitled to the security of the land. There are many cases under the Stamp Law (which enacts that documents are not to be admitted in evidence unless they are stamped), in which such documents have been admitted for collateral purposes. So where an instrument contains several distinct contracts, and as such requires several stamps, it may be used as evidence of one contract for which it was stamped, although it would not be admissible as evidence in respect of the contract for which it was not stamped. Section 34 of the Registration Act requires that every document to be registered must be presented at the proper registration office by some person executing or claiming under the same or by the representative of such person, or by the agent of such person, duly authorized by power of attorney executed and authenticated in the manner thereinafter mentioned.
(2.) Suppose that in the present document the defendant had covenanted with the plaintiff that he would appear at the Registry Office and admit the execution of the contract, so that the document might be duly registered and the plaintiff acquire a title. Suppose defendant refused to go to the Registry Office, and that when the plaintiff went, the Registrar had refused to register, and the plaintiff thereupon sued the defendant for breach of the contract by which he lost the security of the land. According to the contention of Mr. Gregory, the document could not be used as evidence of the covenant to get it registered because it had not been registered. In that case, the party who had contracted to register would be relieved of his obligation because the document had not been registered through his default.
(3.) Or suppose a document of that sort had contained a power authorising the plaintiff to act as the attorney for defendant and to register the document, and when the plaintiff produced the power to the Registrar for the purpose of proving his authority to register, the Registrar had said: "I cannot admit this document because it has not been registered." I cannot look at it." It appears to me that the object of the Legislature in section 49 was that no document should be received in evidence as a document affecting an interest in land unless it should have been registered; but that it was not the intention that such a document should not be admissible in evidence for a purpose for which registration was not necessary. The decision of the lower Court will be reversed and the case will be remanded for trial on the merits. The costs of this appeal will be paid by the respondent.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.