JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage, dated the 1st of January 1882. The original sum secured by the mortgage was only Rs. 300 and the plaintiff now claims Rs. 11,000. The claim is certainly a stale one instituted just as limitation was about to expire. Various defences were raised and amongst them defences as to the execution of the bond and receipt of consideration. There was also a defence that the bond was never duly registered.
2. We think that the last plea is fatal to the plaintiff's case. The Court below finds that the bond was given to the Registrar by the son of the mortgagor, who was not authorised to "present" the document for registration as provided by Section 32 of the Registration Act. Subsequently, a commission was issued to a clerk of the Sub-Registrar to go to the house of the mortgagor to obtain his admission. The Court below did not believe the evidence of the plaintiff where he stated that he himself had given the bond to the Sub-Registrar. Having regard to the endorsement on the bond, we think that the learned Subordinate Judge was quite correct in disbelieving this evidence and we agree in his finding as to how in fact the document was presented. This being so, the case is entirely governed by the ruling of the Full Bench of this Court in Khalil-ud-din Ahmad v. Banni Bibi 10 A.L.J. 440; 17 Ind. Cas. 274. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.