Ahmed Ali and others vs Shaik Ahmed

Misra, C.J.—This is a miscellaneous appeal against the decision of the District Judge, Nizamabad, remanding the case to the Court of the learned Munsiff, Kamareddy, for disposal on merits.

The suit was for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, Shaik Ahmed. The latter obtained the plots in suit by means of a sale deed dated 22-3-1952. Amongst the various defences raised by way of contest, the defendants questioned the validity of the plaintiff''s sale deed, it being urged that the registration of the document, which took place in Nizamabad, was defective.

The contention raised was that since the plots covered by the deed were situate in Kamareddy, the document ought to have been registered at the latter place, in view of the provisions of S. 6, Hyderabad Registration Act, which enjoin that document conveying immoveable properties should be registered at the offices where the properties covered by them are situated.

The trial Court accepted this defence and without entering into other questions raised in the pleadings of the parties, dismissed the suit. The view taken by the lower appellate Court on the plea relating to the defective registration was different. The learned Judge was of the opinion that as a result of R. 9 of the Rules framed under the Hyderabad Registration Act, no objection could be taken to the place of registration.

He accordingly reversed the decision of the learned Munsiff and remanded the case for disposal on merits. The defendants have come up to this Court by way of appeal under O. 43, R. (1) Cl. (u), C. P. C.

Rule 9 (1) of the Rules framed under the Hyderabad Registration Act may be translated as follows:

The offices of Sub-Registrars at the District Headquarters shall be amalgamated with the Registrars'' Offices of the Districts and the Sub-Registrar of such office will in addition to exercising the duties and powers of a Sub-Registrar, shall also exercise the powers of a District Registrar, as his Assistant and under his supervision, except the powers conferred by Ss. 24, 66 and 67, Registration Act.

Section 24, Hyderabad Registration Act provides:

Any Registrar may in his discretion receive and register any document which might be registered by any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him.

The contention urged by the learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants is that although a Registrar could receive for registration a document without reference to the situation of the property to which the instrument might relate, R. (9) being expressly made subject to the provisions of S. 24, the Sub-Registrar of a Registration office situate in a District headquarters at Nizamabad is precluded from exercising the powers of a Registrar and the registration of the document alienating Kamareddy properties by him is a defective registration.

We have heard the appellants'' arguments and after considering them we have come to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to enter at the present stage into the controversy raised in this appeal in view of the fact that even if the plaintiff''s title deed fails on account of defect of the registration pointed out by the defendants he would be deemed to have possessory title against everyone except the superior title holder.

It seems to us, therefore, that the case must be investigated and decided by the trial Court after arriving at its findings on all issues of fact and law including the issues regarding the validity of the sale deed. We would like to impress it upon subordinate Courts that in all cases open to appeal, it is the duty of the trial Courts to give their findings on all issues raised between the parties in order to avoid remands.

It is only in those exceptional cases where the Court is of opinion that the provisions of O. 14, R. (2), C. P. C., are applicable and the case is likely to be disposed of finally on a question of law only, that an issue can be fixed as a preliminary issue and the suit disposed of on such issue alone without entering into the controversy on other matters on which the parties are at variance.

We set aside the finding of the learned District Judge regarding the validity of the deed but uphold the order of remand. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly directed that the learned Munsiff should decide the whole case on merits. The appeal is allowed only to the extent indicated above. The costs of the appeal will abide the result.