Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Section 32 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 61 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 84 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Jambu Parshad vs Muhammad Nawab Aftab Ali Khan on 25 November, 1914
8. The provisions of the Registration Act are very carefully designed to prevent forgeries and the procurement of conveyances or mortgages by fraud or undue influence, and though it may seem somewhat technical to insist upon exact compliance n with the provisions of the Act, it is necessary so to do. Their Lordships have already given their sanction to the necessity of strict compliance with these forms in the case which was referred to at the Bar: Jambu Parshad v. Muhammad Aftab Ali Khan (1914) L. R. 42 I. A. 22 : 17 Bom. L. R. 413. In that case there were two mortgages presented at the registration office by two agents on behalf of the mortgagee, neither of whom held any authenticated power of attorney. Thereupon the registrar in pursuance of his duty under Section 84 enquired of the mortgagors who were there present at the same time whether they admitted the execution of the deeds, and they said that they did. Whereupon the registrar registered them. The presentation on behalf of the mortgagee being ineffective by reason of the defect in the power of attorney, an attempt was made to support it on the theory that the mortgagors who attended and admitted the execution and re-received the mortgage money might be assumed to have presented the mortgages. But the High Court at Allahabad and their Lordships on appeal held otherwise. Their Lordships observed that it was obvious that the mortgagors had attended to admit that they had executed the deeds and not to present them for registration and that they did not present them for registration. Their Lordships said that the mortgagors could not be treated as presenting them for registration; they were no doubt assenting to the registrar but that would not be sufficient to give the registration jurisdiction.
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Bombay Cotton Manufacturing Co. ... vs Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal on 25 February, 1915
19. It has been urged before their Lordships that the matter largely turns upon the credibility or otherwise of the plaintiff's witnesses, Daud Ali and Nazir Hussain, who swore that the money passed, and that it is not right that the finding of the Subordinate Judge that these witnesses were to be disbelieved should be set aside by the High Court which did not see the witnesses; and in support of this contention reference TOM made to the decision of the Board in Bombay Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited v. Motilal Shivlal (1915) L. R. 42 I. A. 22 : 17 Bom L.R. 455. Their Lordships have no intention of entrenching upon the salutary principle laid down in that case. But in the present case the High Court had an important piece of knowledge which was not in the possession of the Subordinate Judge who tried the case. He proceeded upon the view, which was to a certain extent true, that Wilayat Ali Khan was "considerably involved," but he did know that however this might be, there was still an ample surplus of assets, and this important fact of which the High Court was in possession but of which the Subordinate Judge was not aware, might well warrant a different conclusion from that which was arrived at in the Court of first instance.
1