1. The plaintiff sued to compel the defendant to register a conveyance executed by him to her on 26th January 1892 and to recover possession of
the property comprised therein. In consequence of objections raised to the frame of the suit the plaintiff withdrew the prayer for delivery of
possession and the sole point tried was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree that the deed should be registered. The instrument was
presented for registration on 26th May 1892.
2. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the contract of sale was cancelled after execution of the instrument and the earnest
money returned. On appeal the District Judge confirmed the decision on a different ground, which he allowed to be argued though it does not
appear to have been taken before the District Munsif or in the grounds of appeal. The Judge held that the question of the cancellation of the
contract of sale was immaterial in the suit; that the only question was whether plaintiff had observed the formalities entitling her to registration of the
instrument; but that, as she had taken no steps to compel defendant to appear at the registration office, she was not entitled to have the document
registered, and that her suit was rightly dismissed.
3. As the prayer for the performance of the contract, viz., the delivery of the property, was withdrawn, we agree with the District Judge that the
only question was whether, under the provisions of the Registration Act, the plaintiff was entitled to demand that an instrument, the execution of
which was admitted, should be registered. The document was presented in time, and it has been held in Hasanalli Khan Bahadur v. Ekambaram
Second Appeal No. 1541 of 1893 (unreported)., that the question to be considered in a suit u/s 77 of the Registration Act is limited to the factum
of execution. No time is fixed by law within which the registration of an instrument presented and accepted within four months of its execution must
be completed. Sah Makhun Lall Punday v. Sah Koondun Lall L.R. 2 IndAp 210; Shama Charan Das v. Joyenoolah ILR 11 Cal. 750; Hatcourie
Pyne v. Luckey Narain Khettry ILR 15 Cal. 538 and In re Shaik Abdul Aziz ILR 11 Bom. 691
4. We must reverse the decrees of the Courts below and give plaintiff a decree directing the document to be registered u/s 77 of the Registration
Act. The plaintiff is entitled to her costs in this Court and in the Lower Appellate Court, but we direct that each party pay her and his own costs in
the Court of First Instance since this point was not there taken.
