Law:

Section:

Sylhet Tenancy Act (XI of 1936), S. 34 (1) read with Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1831), S. 59 and Registration Act (XLV of 1908), S. 34 (4)-Document-Attestation-Admissibility of evi dence-Mortgage of jote right in property situated in Sylhet execut ed by registered but unattested deed - Valid and admissible in evidence - No attestation necessary - Attestation required only under S.59, Transfer of Property Act, 1881-auch transaction governed by Sylhet Tenancy Act, 1936 and not by Transfer of Property Act, 1881. A careful reading of section 34, Sylhet Tenancy Act, 1936 will show that the provisions of this section would prevail over other enactments or law and the object of the Legislature was to ensure that the mortgagor gets back the property after the expiry of the period mentioned in the said section. The only other enact ment which has been referred to as applicable is the Registration Act, 1908. Subsection (4) of section 34 lays down that every complete usufructuary mortgage entered into after the commence ment of the Act shall be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Registration Act, 1908 does not anywhere lay down that a document has to be attested before it can be registered. The requirement of attestation finds place only in section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is not applicable to the transaction regarding mortgage of jote right of property situated in Sylhet. It was held that the document was a valid document under the law governing it, namely, Sylhet Tenancy Act, and was, admissible in evidence legally as it was admittedly registered as required by section 34, subsection (4) of the Sylhet Tenancy Act.   JUDGMENT This second appeal is by defendant No. 2 and raises some interesting points of law. The plaintiffs' case is that the disputed land formerly belonged to Shaikh Dhanu in jote right. Shaikh Dhanu afterwards died leaving behind his four sons, namely, Abdul Jabbar, Abdul Malek and the plaintiffs 2 and 4, his wife the plaintiff No. 3, as his heirs. While these heirs were in possession of the properties left by Sheikh Dhanu, Abdul Jabbar and Abdul Malek borrowed a sum of Rs. 300 from the defendant No. 1 and…