Shripathi Laxman Kshirsagar vs Balvantrao Krishna Chitnis

Norman Macleod, Kr., C.J.—The question raised in these appeals is a very technical one. The document which required to be registered u/s 17 of the Indian Registration Act, as one of the parties was an agriculturist, was written and executed before the Sub-Registrar according to the provisions u/s 63A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act. The parties in whose favour the document was taken were described as Balvantrao, Shankarrao and Ganpatrao Chitnis, residing at Nigdi, by their Vahivatdar Rango Vislinu Aphale. He signed the declaration required by Rule 23 of the rules made u/s 61 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act, as the Vahivatdar of those persons in his own handwriting. Objection was taken at the hearing of the suit, which was filed on this document that it had not been proved that it had been properly registered.

The suit was accordingly dismissed in the trial Court. But by the appellate Court an order was passed that the decree dismissing the suit should be set aside and the case remanded for trial.

We think the whole question turns upon whether Section 57 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act requires that the party in whose favour a document is executed is bound to appear at the time of execution before the Registrar, and that if he does not appear, the document cannot be considered as capable of being properly registered. Whatever was intended by the provisions of Sections 57 and 59 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act, which are incorporated in Section 53A, the only persons who are bound to appear before the Registrar are the persons who intend to execute any instrument to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. Though the 3rd para of Section 57 of the Act provides that "every executant of any such instrument shall appear in person before the Village-registrar: but every other party thereto may appear either in person or by any agent, being his relative, servant or dependent, whom he has duly furnished with a power of attorney," if such other party is not bound to be present under the 1st para of the section, then it cannot be said that the document is not duly registered according to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, if he does not appear. It may be that that was not the intention of the framers of the Act. But we can only read the Act as it stands. We cannot read into it words, which are not there, merely by implication, or because we think it advisable that those words should be included.

It has been urged that the document after it had been written out before the Sub-Registrar, or by him, and executed and attested according to the Act could not be said to be duly registered until it had been presented by the person claiming under it under the provisions of Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act. But Section 63A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act provides that after the Sub-Registrar has followed the procedure prescribed for a Village-registrar, he shall then register the instrument according to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, and that means that he shall register the document as directed in Sections 58 to 61 inclusive of the Indian Registration Act. All the necessary preliminaries had to be taken under Sections 57 and 59 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act, whereas in the case of any other document which has to be registered under the Indian Registration Act the prior formalities required are prescribed by Sections 32 and 35 of the Indian Registration Act.

We think, therefore, there is no substance in this point raised by the appellant, and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs