Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This is an appeal on behalf of one of the Defendants in a suit brought by the Plaintiffs under section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The Plaintiffs case was that one Kiron Sakhi Dasi along with nine other persons executed an ijara potta in favour of the Plaintiffs on October 4, 1940. All the executants with the exception of Kiron Sakhi had duly registered the document. The latter refused to effect registration. An application was filed for compulsory registration but the registering officer, as also the District Sub-Registrar, refused to effect registration. The present suit was then instituted within the period fixed by the statute. Kiron Sakhi was impleaded as one of the party Defendants, and she filed a written statement stating inter alia that the document in question had not been fully explained to her and that at the time of the execution she had been told that the document which was being executed by her was of a different character. It was, on such misrepresentation, she alleged, that she had fixed her thumb impression upon the document and without fully appreciating the real nature of the transaction. Kiron Sakhi died before the suit had come up for hearing. She left three sons, Defendant Nos. 10 to 12. Defendant Nos. 10 and 11 did not contest the suit. Defendant No. 12, who is the Appellant before us, filed a written statement reiterating that his mother had not executed the document in question.
(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge had on a consideration of the evidence come to the conclusion that the document had been executed by Kiron Sakhi after the terms thereof had been explained to her. He also found that the plea of fraud or undue influence had not been made out. The Plaintiffs suit was accordingly decreed.
(3.) On appeal by Defendant No. 12, the learned Additional District Judge did not see any reason to differ from the conclusions reached by the trial Court. It was pointed out that in a suit under section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, the Court was not concerned with the validity of the transaction, and it was not necessary for the Court to enter upon a discussion whether the executants of the document had any legal right as sebaits of a Deity.;