Land registration is a condition for relief, not a bar to suit for rent once cured before trial.

Section 78 of the Land Registration Act, 1876 was construed as making registration a condition for obtaining relief for rent, not the source of the landlord's right to sue. Read with Sections 79 and 81, the Act was held to protect tenants and regulate recovery without extinguishing the substantive right of the true owner. On that approach, failure to produce registration before filing did not bar the suit itself, and the defect was cured when the certificate was produced before trial. The claim for arrears of rent could therefore proceed on merits once registration had been shown before adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether an unregistered proprietor of an estate in Calcutta could maintain a suit for arrears of rent when the certificate of registration was produced before trial, and whether the Land Registration Act, 1876 barred only recovery of a decree or barred the institution of the suit itself.

Analysis: Section 78 of the Land Registration Act, 1876 was construed with Sections 79 and 81. The majority view was that the Act did not divest the true owner of the rent or make registration the source of title to the rent, but only imposed an impediment on obtaining relief until registration was produced. The provisions protecting tenants under Section 79 and preserving the right to recover money from the person who received it under Section 81 showed that the statute was directed to securing registration and protecting tenants, not to extinguishing the landlord's substantive right. The Court also reasoned that a stricter construction would create injustice, including the risk of limitation defeating just claims, and that the statute should be read so as to avoid that result. Since the certificate had been produced when the suit came on for trial, the procedural defect stood removed.

Conclusion: The suit could proceed, and the unregistered proprietor was not barred from prosecuting the claim once registration was obtained before trial.

Final Conclusion: The decision treated prior non-registration as no absolute bar to the suit for rent, and held that production of the registration certificate before trial enabled the claim to be heard on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Land Registration Act, 1876, registration of the proprietor's name was a condition to obtaining a decree for rent, not the source of the right to sue, and the defect was cured if registration was produced before adjudication.

---