Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Mahendra Nath Chatterjee vs Lalit Mohan Datta on 20 December, 1918

Taraprosad Prodhan vs Sri Shyam Bera And Ors. on 9 January, 1959

4. Mr. Ghose who argued the appeal on behalf of the plaintiff appellant submitted that the point raised in this appeal is concluded by a decision of this Court reported in Manindra Nath v. Lalit Mohan, (55 Cal W.N. 166). In that case it has been held that the scope of enquiry in a suit brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act is of the same nature as an enquiry before the registering authority and it is not open to the court to enter into questions relating to the validity of the document. This case was also cited before the lower appellate court, but that court is of opinion that the decision in question does not apply to the present case inasmuch as the document was not legally or validly executed. In my opinion the lower appellate court has committed an error in law by misappreciating the effect of the decision mentioned above. The legality or validity of a document is an irrelevant factor for the consideration of the court in a suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. The validity cannot be questioned by a defence that fraud or coercion or undue influence was practised upon the executant or that the executant signed a blank paper without knowing what document was going to be written thereon. In the present case the defence taken by the respondents was of the last description. In my opinion such a defence cannot be taken and such a defence should not be the subject matter of enquiry by the Civil Court in a suit under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. It would be sufficient for the plaintiff of a suit of this nature to establish that the document, registration of which has been refused by the Registrar, was either signed or thumb-impressed by the executant. In this case it has been clearly established by the evidence of a hand-writing expert and also by the admission of defendant Shyam Bera himself that the thumb impressions which appear on the document are the thumb impressions of the defendants respondents. That being the case, there was prima facie execution of the document and the courts below should not have entered into the question whether the document is an invalid one because those thumb impressions were originally given on blank sheets of paper. Those findings of the courts below are expunged in this case. If the respondent are sure that the document in question is not a valid document because their thumb impressions were taken on blank sheets of paper, then they would certainly be entitled to file an appropriate suit for obtaining proper relief, unless otherwise barred. But so far as this suit is concerned there must be a direction for registration of the document under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act. In my opinion the case reported in 55 Cal W. N. 166 and already cited by me fully supports this view.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1