9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (7) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a sum of ₹ 13,764, the balance of principal and interest on three promissory notes dated 25th June 1921, 25th November 1921 and 30th May 1923, for the sums of ₹ 7,700, ₹ 1,700. and ₹ 2,600 respectively, and made by the mortgagors in favor of the first named mortgagee and her husband. The second named mortgagee is Ma Pwa May's son. His wife is the niece of Maung Po Saung, one of the mortgagors. The further consideration making up the total sum of ₹ 20,000, is alleged to be a present advance of ₹ 6,236 in cash. The mortgage was registered on 14th March 1924. There is no doubt that at the date of this mortgage the mortgagors were heavily indebted. One of their creditors was the respondent firm, who on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the deed was void was based on S. 53, T. P. Act, 1882, which provides that any transfer of immovable property made with intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the transferor is voidable at the option of any person so defeated or delayed. The learned District Judge, after hearing evidence, found that the deed was duly executed by the mortgagors, and the consideration was truly stated in the deed, i.e, that the promissory notes referred to were genuine notes on which the mortgagors were indebted to the mortgagees in the sums mentioned, and that the cash advance was in fact made. There appears to be no finding to the contrary by this Court, who nevertheless came to the conclusion that the mortgage was made with intent to defeat and delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of the law of Lord Wrenbury in giving the decision of the Board in Musahar Sahu v. Hakim Lal A.I.R. 1915 P.O. 115=43 Cal. 521=43 I.A. 104 (P.O.). The plea of the respondents, therefore, on the merits failed. It is necessary, however, to determine the issues raised by the objection to the stamp and the consequent objection to the registration. The point is highly technical and is as follows :-The mortgage was executed on a sheet which bore, not an ordinary revenue stamp, but a Court-fee stamp. The stamp appears to be the ordinary impressed revenue stamp, but surcharged with the words "Court Fee" stamped over it. The amount of the stamp in this case is sufficient to satisfy the revenue requirements, but the respondents conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any stage of the suit on a stamp objection. The question of admissibility is thus disposed of. The attention of their Lordships was called to the provisions of S. 37, which enables the Governor-General in Council to make rules providing that where an instrument bears stamps of sufficient amount, but of improper description, "it may on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable be certified to be duly stamped, and any instrument so certified shall then be deemed to have been duly stamped as from the date of its Execution." 6. Their Lordships, entertain no doubt that in pursuance of this section and the rules made there under (R. 16 of the Rules of 17th February 1899), the Collector would have been entitled in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Where the registrar has no jurisdiction to register, as where a person not entitled to do so presents for registration, or where there is lack of territorial jurisdiction, or where the presentation is out of time, the section is inoperative-: see Mujibunnissa v. Abdul Bahim [1900] 23 All. 233= 28 I.A. 15= 7 Sar. 829 (P.O.). On the other hand, if the registrar having jurisdiction has made a mistake in the exercise of it, the section takes effect. Their Lordships, have no doubt that the mistake is an error in procedure. The prohibition; against registration is included in S. 35, amongst similar prohibitions as to admitting in evidence and authenticating, which can only be regarded as procedure. The duty of the registering officer is to scr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to persons taking conveyance of land of small value, it is scarcely reasonable to suppose that it was the intention of the legislature that every registration of a deed should be null and void by reason of a non-compliance with the provisions of Ss. 19, 21 or 36, or other similar provisions. It is rather to be inferred that the legislature intended that such errors or defects should be classed under the general words "defect in procedure" in S. 88 of the Act, so that innocent and ignorant persons should not be deprived of their property through any error or inadvertence of a public officer, on whom they would naturally place reliance. If the registering officer refuses to register the mistake may be rectified upon appeal, under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
