JUDGMENT
1. The value of the subject-matter of the suit and of the proposed appeal to His Majesty in Council far exceeds Rs. 10,000. The decisions, however, of this Court and of the Court below are concurrent and accordingly we have to say whether we can certify that there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The question, upon which the case turned both in the Court of first instance and in this Court, was whether or not the mortgage-bond was duly registered. Both the Courts held that it was not. It must be taken that the Courts have decided that the person who handed the bond to the Sub-Registrar was not a person authorised to do so under Section 33 of the Registration Act (III of 1877). The evidence, however, establishes that prior to the registration there were present before the Sub-Registrar assenting to the registration of the bond persons who were authorised to "present" the bond to the Sub-Registrar for registration. The question is whether this constitutes a good "presentation" and registration within the meaning of the Registration Act. In this Court and in the Court below the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mujib-un-nissa v. Abdul Rahim 23 A. 233; 28 I.A. 15 (P.C.) was considered. This case can clearly be distinguished upon the ground that there never was present before the Sub-Registrar any person who was authorised to present the document. There have been decisions in this Court in which it has been held on facts very similar that registration taking place in the presence and with the assent of persons who would have been competent to "present" the bond for registration is a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act. In our opinion, there is a substantial question of law involved in the proposed appeal. The case, therefore, fulfills the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we so certify.