Territorial jurisdiction, good faith registration, and no transfer of immovable property determined the registration dispute.

A Deputy Commissioner's injunction could not bar registration where both the person and the property were outside his territorial jurisdiction. A Sub-Registrar's disqualifying interest in the property did not invalidate a registration completed in good faith, because the defect was treated as procedural and protected by the saving provision for honest acts. A later trusteenama appointing trustees as superintendents or managers, without vesting ownership or transferring an interest in immovable property, did not require registration under the Registration Act of 1877. On these grounds, the decree for the respondents was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner's injunction under the Court of Wards law could prevent registration when the person and property were outside his jurisdiction; (ii) whether the Sub-Registrar was disqualified from registering the deed because of an interest in the property, and whether such defect invalidated the registration done in good faith; (iii) whether the later trusteenama created or transferred an interest in immovable property so as to require registration under the Registration Act of 1877.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner's injunction under the Court of Wards law could prevent registration when the person and property were outside his jurisdiction.

Analysis: The authority to issue the injunction, even if otherwise available under the Court of Wards Act, could not operate beyond the officer's territorial jurisdiction. An order made when both the person and the property were outside that area lacked legal force for the purpose asserted against registration.

Conclusion: The injunction did not prevent registration.

Issue (ii): Whether the Sub-Registrar was disqualified from registering the deed because of an interest in the property, and whether such defect invalidated the registration done in good faith.

Analysis: Rule 174 treated a connected or interested registering officer as disqualified, but Section 87 protected acts done in good faith by a registering officer from being invalidated merely because of a defect in appointment or procedure. The disqualification was treated as procedural, and the registration was completed honestly and in good faith.

Conclusion: The registration was not invalidated by the Sub-Registrar's interest.

Issue (iii): Whether the later trusteenama created or transferred an interest in immovable property so as to require registration under the Registration Act of 1877.

Analysis: The deed did not vest ownership in the trustees; it described them as superintendents or managers with powers of control, not as holders of title. As no proprietary interest in immovable property was transferred by that document, it did not fall within the class of instruments requiring registration.

Conclusion: The trusteenama did not require registration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all the questions raised, and the decree in favour of the respondents was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A registration defect caused by an officer's disqualifying interest does not invalidate a registration done in good faith where the defect is procedural, and a document appointing superintendents without transferring ownership of immovable property does not require registration.

---