P L D 1966 Dacca 259 (PLP)

This is a revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the pre‑emptees‑petitioners arising out of a proceeding under section 26(F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is no longer in dispute that the pre‑emptor opposite party No. 1 is a co‑sharer of the holding to which the disputed subject‑matter appertains and has also locus standi to maintain the application under the aforesaid provision. There is no question too that notice of transfer under section 26(F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was not served upon him. The only point canvassed now before ‑me is whether the application is time‑barred. The disputed transfer was effected by a kabala executed and also presented for registration on 16‑9‑

57. On the same date the Sub‑Registrar ‑ made endorsements thereon in compliance with the requirements of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 of the Registration Act. The certificates of registration as required under section 60 of the said Act were however endorsed by him on 11‑3‑

59. The application for pre‑emption was filed by the opposite‑party No. 1 on 4‑9‑61 which was apparently beyond three years from the date on which the kabala was executed and presented for registration and accordingly the present petitioners resisted the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, took the view that the application having been filed within three years from the date of registration of the relevant document, i.e. 11‑3‑59 when the Sub‑Registrar endorsed the certificate as stated above, is within time. In taking this view he has relied upon the case of Mst. Sardar Begum v. Syed Masum Shah and another (A I R 1945 Pesh. 9) wherein it has been held that a document is said to be registered only when it is entered in the book. The provision laid down in the above case appears to receive support also from Naresh Chandra Dutt v. Girish Chandra Das and others (61 C L J 360). In this case the learned Judges relying upon the authority of the Privy Council in Nabadwip Chandra Das v. Lokenath Roy (36 C W N 723) and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Veerappa Chesty v. Kadiresan Chetty ((1913) 42 M L J 664) have held as follow:‑-- "On the question whether the executant of a deed compul sorily registrable has any locus paenitentiae to resile, by reason of the fact that the title under it is incomplete for want of registration, it has been held and that proposition appears to have been affirmed by the Judicial Committee that incompleteness due to want of registration is not a thing of which the executant can take any advantage, and that if the instrument is otherwise complete, the executant is to be regarded as having done every thing that was in his power to complete the transfer and to make it effective; because registration; does not depend upon the executant's consent but is the act of the officer ,appointed for the purpose Nabadweep Chandra Das v. Lokenath Roy (1932) I L R 59 Cal. 1176, and also in 36 C W N 723 and Kalyanasundran Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar 1926 L R 54 I A

89. But, as regards third parties the point of time at which the transfer is to be effective is when the deed of transfer can be said to be a registered deed." As to when a document may be said to be registered, I would better refer to some of the provisions of the Registration Act. Section 32 specifies the persons who may present a document for registration. Section 34 provides for the enquiries to be made upon such presentation by the registering officers before registering the document. Section 35 lays down the procedure to be followed on admission or denial, as the case maybe, of execution. Section 52 enumerates the duties of the registering officer when a document is presented, while sections 58 and 59 enjoin the particulars to be endorsed on documents admitted to registration under the dated signature of the registering officer. It is then laid down under sections 60 and 61 as follows:‑

"

60. Certificate of registration.‑(1) After such of the pro visions of sections 34, 35, 58 and 59 as apply‑ to any document presented for registration have been complied with the registering officer shall endorse thereon a certificate containing the word "registered", together with the number and page of the book in which the document has been copied. (2) Such certificate shall be signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered and in manner provided by this Act, and that the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred to in section 59 have occurred a therein mentioned." "

61. Endorsements and certificate to be copied and documents returned.‑(1) The dorsements and certificate referred to and mentioned in sections 59 and 60 shall thereupon be copied into the margin of the Register‑book, and the copy of the map or plan (if any) mentioned in section 21 shall be filed in Book No. 1. (2) The Registration of the document shall thereupon be deemed complete, and the document shall then be returned to the person who presented the same for registration, or to such other person (if any) as he has nominated in writing in that behalf on the receipt mentioned in section 52." It is thus clear that presentations of a document and admission of its execution are mere preliminary steps towards registration and a document can be said to be registered only when the regis tering officer after completing the preliminary formalities enjoined under sections 34, 35, 58 and 59, has endorsed thereon the certificate required under section

60. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge has correctly decided the point. The Rule is accordingly discharged, but having regard to the circumstances I leave the parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.