MUJIBUNNISSA Vs. ABDUL RAHIM AND ABDUL AZIZ
LAWS(PVC)-1900-12-23
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on December 08,1900

Mujibunnissa Appellant
VERSUS
Abdul Rahim And Abdul Aziz Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ROBERTSON, J. - (1.) THE appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit before the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, and by their plaint they prayed that it should be declared that a deed executed in October, 1889, by Munshi Syed Mehrban Ali, deceased, is a valid deed of wakf. The property affected by this instrument is said to be worth Rs. 400,000. The plaintiffs are respectively wives and daughters of the deceased, for whom certain provisions are made in the deed. The defendants were two of his sisters, for whom no provision was made in the deed. Both sisters are now dead, and only one of them, Ulfatun-nisa, is now represented on the record in pursuance of an Order in Council of August 7, 1900, which struck off the representatives of the other sister, Sharif-un-nisa, under circumstances set out in that order.
(2.) OF the several issues settled by the Subordinate Judge, two only have been argued in this appeal. The first question is raised by the defendants' plea that the deed founded on, not having been legally registered, cannot be admitted in evidence and cannot affect the property. The second question is raised by the defendants' contention that, having regard to the terms of the deed itself, the property did not become a wakf property. Both questions have been considered by their Lordships. The question about registration turns on the Act III. of 1877. The deed in dispute being an instrument of gift of immovable property, it came under Section 17 of the Act, and registration under the Act was accordingly, by Section 49, indispensable in order to render it receivable as evidence of the transaction which it purported to record, and to enable it to affect the immovable property comprised therein. The question is, was it lawfully registered? It was de facto registered, but the history of that registration requires to be examined.
(3.) THE deed as ultimately presented for registration and registered consists of two parts, of which the former part is dated October 16, 1889, and contains the deed of endowment and conditions, while the latter part is headed "Supplement or Detail of the Endowed Property," and consists of these particulars. It appears that at first the munshi who executed the deed, or his advisers, had not adverted to the requirements of Section 21 of the Registration Act; and as the deed as at first presented for registration did not contain "a description of" the "property sufficient to identify the same," the registrar, on October 16,1889, declined to register, but returned the deed "for correction and compliance with" those statutory provisions. The deed had been presented on behalf of the munshi by Saiyid Habib-ul-lah, who held his power of attorney. On October 24, 1889, the supplement or detail of the endowed property was added, so as to render the deed registerable, and on that day the deed so completed was executed by the munshi. On November 4, 1889, that deed of endowment (i.e., the completed deed) was presented for registration by the same Saiyid Habib-ul-lah. In the interval between the execution of the completed deed and its presentation to the registrar the munshi died. The legal question now to be considered turns on this last fact. The narrative, however, may be completed by mentioning that the registrar accepted the deed and registered it, recording in writing that the man who had executed it and whose attorney presented it for registration was dead.;


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