18 J0 Cırcular ()'ı den No 30 Regarding a Ducri L ( 8レ・ ) No. 1350 With reference to the printed C O No 30, dated the 18th January 1839, it was held on a reference from the Judge of Midnapore, that a decree holder purchasing his debtor's property at a public sale by the Collector, for a higher sum than the amount of his decree must deposit 15 per cent on the whole amount of holde. Purohong his the purchase money, or the balance in full, as should the balance above the debtor’s proporty at pub lic salt 1703, Reg X. KXW I Reg III Section 9 Clause 3, 4 and 3 amount of his decree not be paid, the sule falls to the ground, and the purchaser forfeits the earnest money or the sum total bid by him Calcutta Court, 15th July, Western Court, 5th August, 1842 No 135l Extract from a letter from the Judge of Backergunge to the Register of the Presidency Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawlut, dated 11th July, 1842 “Par 2 A petition has been presented to this Court, by A, stating that on the rejection by the officer in charge of the Registry Office of a Deed of Sale executed by him in favor of B, on the ground of a similar deed purporting to have been executed by him in favor of C, a third party, having been already registered by a person acting under A's Mookhtyarnamah, duly attested and sworn to by Witnesses A applied by written petition to the officer before mentioned, alleging that the Deed and Mookhtyaruamah were both forgeries and requesting that such proceedings should be taken as might protect his interists from prejudice, but that this petition was rejected without any reasons assigned Now as the order on the petition does not state whether any and what enquiry into the validity of the Mookhtyarnamah was instituted subsequent to the date of the Petition, I should think the proper course for the ends of Justice would be to direct the Register to institute an enquiry, if it had not been done, both as to the Mookhtyarnamah and Deed of Sale already registered, and if they, or at any rate if the Mookhtyarnamah appeared to be a forgery, to cause the delinquents to be proceeded against by application to the Judge for commitments for forgery or perJury, or both as might be warranted “3d I cannot however discover any thıng ın the Regulations authorizing suci, interference of the Judge with the proceedings of the officer in charge of the of.fice for the Registry of Deeds, on the contrary he is directed to bring any irregularities to the notice of Government, and therefore particularly as the case is a novel one I have decided on applying for instructions." “4th Another point apparently requires to be cleared up On the Mookhtyarnamah or registered Deed being proved before a competent tribunal to be a forgery it would I conceive be the duty of the Registoring Officer to cancel the Registry already made and to admit the Deed now tenderod to registry, would the Judge be competent under these or any other circumstances to receive an appeal brought with a view to compel the Registering Officer to register or cancel the registry of a Deed, on his refusal to do either?” Extract from the reply of the Calcutta Court “The Register should register the Deed brought to him for that purpose, leaving it to the Courts to declare which of the two Deeds of Sale is the true and valid document, wherever that question may be raised in a regular suit The Register, however, must satisfy himself of the identity of the party registering the Deed, if the latter appear in person, or, if by attorney, ascertain the due attestation and validity of the Mooktyarnamah" Western Court concurred Calcutta Court, 22d July, Western Court, 12th August, 1842 No 1352 Held on a reference from the Session Judge of Azlingurh that the requisition by the Magistrate from the Zumindars of villages within a certain distance from that where an affray attended with homicide occurred, of certificates that the [গবর্ণমেন্ট গেজেট ১৮৪২ । ১ • সেপ্টেম্বর।]
