LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback Law Cite

Maung Aung Myint 'and others--Res from the date of its execution." pondents. In our opinion in the circumstances Letters Patent Appeal No. 7 of 1933, obtaining in the present case the regis Decided on 2nd March 1933, from decree tration of the mortgage deed by the Re of High Court, Rangoon, reported in A. I. B. 1933 Bang. 5. gistrar was ultra vires. No attempt was (a) Registration Act (1908), S. 60 (1)--Cer made at the hearing of the suit, pursu tificate of registration though prima facie ant to S. 25 to account for the delay in -evidence of valid registration is not conclu presentation on the gsound of urgent ne sive evidence. cessity or unavoidable accident and there A certificate of registration though prima facie ^evidence that the document has been duly regis was no evidence that U Chitty, the tered according to law is not conclusive evidence agent of Aung Din, the mortgagee, who *of valid registration: 1 All 465 (P C), Ref. presented the document for registration [P 194 C 2] on 5th February 1923, was justified in (b) Registration Act (1908), Ss. 23, 32, 49 and 87--Presentation of document beyond presenting it more than four months four months after execution--Delay not ac after it was executed. U Chitty stated counted for--Registrar has no jurisdiction to that: register and mere fact of registration does "as soon as deed was given to me I went and not take document out of S. 49. presented it for registration; I did not keep it in Where a document is presented for registration my hands." after four months from date of execution, and Aung Din, who retained possession of rthe delay is not accounted for, the Registrar has mo jusisdiction to register it, and the mere fact the deed after it was executed and until -that he registers such document does not take it was registered, did not give any reason fche document out of the ambit of S. 49. Presen- 1. (1876) 1 All 465=4 I A 166 (P C). 1933 E. M. P. M. Chettiar Firm v. Siemens Ltd. (Brown, Jj Rangoon 195 to justify the delay in presentation. In katappayya v. Nayani Venkata Banga my opinion, the failure of the mortgagee Bow{9). In Ma Pwa May v. S. B. M. M, to register this deed within the four A. Chettiar Firm (10), Lord Atkin, deli months prescribed in S. 23 brings the vering the judgment of the Judicial Com document within the ambit of S. 49. In mittee, observed in connexion withS. 87, Chhotey Lai v. Collector of Morada- Registration Act , that: *bad (2), Lord Buckmaster, delivering the "in seeking to apply this section it is important judgment of the Board, observed: to distinguish between defects in the procedure . "The Registration Act has imposed several con of the Registrar and lack of jurisdiction. Where ditions regulating the presentation of documents the Registrar has no jurisdiction to register, as ior registration, and it is of great importance that where a person not entitled to do so presents for those conditions, framed with a view to meet registration, or where there is lack of territorial local circumstances, should not be weakened or jurisdiction, or where the presentation is out of strained on the ground that they may appear to time, the section is inoperative": see Mujibun- he exacting and strict." nissa v. Bahim and Abdul Aziz (3)* It is well settled that where there has These observations of the learned Lord been a failure to comply with the pro no doubt were obiter dicta, but they are visions of S. 32 which provides that the of great weight, and in my opinion they document shall be presented for regis are in consonance both with principle tration by the persons therein named and authority. For these reasons I am the breach of this section is not a mere of opinion that the appeal fails and ·defect in procedure on the part of the must be dismissed with costs. ; Registrar so as to bring into play the Mya Bu, J.--I concur. ^ provisions of S. 87. Mujibunnissa v. R.K._____________ Appeal dismissed. 9     2

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name	Citation(s)	Court	Jurisdiction †	Date	Full Text		Citation Index
U Aung Din v Maung Aung Myint	[1933] AllINRprRang 62; [1933] AIR Rang 194	All India Reporter - Rangoon	Myanmar	2 Mar 1933	AsianLII
R M P M Chettiar Firm v Siemens (India) Ltd	[1933] AllINRprRang 32; [1933] AIR Rang 195	All India Reporter - Rangoon	Myanmar	7 Feb 1933	AsianLII