No application has been produced in court, and it must be presumed that when the Registrar authenticated Exhibit B under section 33 of the Act, he did so on an application setting out the proper ground, and' that he satisfied himself that ground did exist. Whether he was right in his conclusion that the defendant was suffering from bodily infirmity is not a matter which can be gone into in a court of law. It is a matter exclusively within his jurisdiction, and any error which he might have committed would not affect his jurisdiction to register the document. In Ma Pwa May v. Chettiar Firm(1) Lord Atkin observed: "In seeking to apply this section (section 87), it is important to distinguish between defects in the procedure of the Registrar and lack of jurisdiction. Where the Registrar has no jurisdiction to register, as where a person not entitled to do so presents for registration, or where there is lack of territorial jurisdiction, or where the presentation is out of time, the section is inoperative: see Mujibunnissa v. Abdul Rahim(2). On the other hand, if the registrar having a jurisdiction has made a mistake in the exercise of it, the section (section 33) takes effect." A decision of the Registrar that an applicant was suffering from bodily infirmity for the purposes of section 33 (1), proviso, clause (1), relates to a mere matter of procedure not affecting his jurisdiction, and even if erroneous, would not affect the validity of the registration. Moreover, there is the fact already mentioned that when the Registrar came to the residence for authenticating Exhibit B, the defendant signed it once again before him, and that would, in any case, be sufficient. There is no substance in this contention and it must be overruled.
Supreme Court of India
Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 316, 1954 SCR 919
No comments:
Post a Comment