What did the Supreme Court decide about attestation under Section 3 TPA?

The Court held the security bond was not validly attested because the Sub-Registrar and identifiers signed only for registration and identification, not with the intent to attest execution.

Did the decree create a valid charge over the property?

Yes. Even though attestation failed, the decree validly created a charge enforceable in execution. Section 100 TPA does not require attestation like a mortgage does.

Is attestation by the Sub-Registrar sufficient?

No. A registering officer’s signature under Section 59 of the Registration Act is a statutory endorsement, not an attestation unless done with animus attestandi.

Were the respondents entitled to rateable distribution under Section 73 CPC?

No. The sale proceeds went first to satisfy the encumbrance in favour of the appellant, so others could not claim rateable distribution.

Was territorial jurisdiction an issue?

Any objection to territorial jurisdiction was treated as waived because it was not raised earlier.

M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons (AIR 1969 SC 1147)

Quick Summary

This case explains what counts as proper attestation under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA). The Supreme Court said that the Sub-Registrar and the identifying witnesses did not sign the bond with the intent to attest (animus attestandi). So, the bond was not “attested” by two witnesses.

Even so, the Court upheld a valid charge created by the decree over the properties. A charge under Section 100 TPA does not need the same formalities as a mortgage. Therefore, the appellant’s encumbrance stood first, and others could not claim rateable distribution under Section 73 CPC.

Issues

Was the security bond validly attested under Section 3 TPA?
Did the High Court’s decree create a valid charge on the properties?
Were the respondents entitled to rateable distribution under Section 73 CPC?

Rules

Attestation needs intent: Each witness must sign with the intent to attest the execution (animus attestandi).
Section 3 TPA: At least two witnesses must see the executant sign or receive a personal acknowledgment.
Section 59 Registration Act, 1908: Sub-Registrar’s signature is a statutory endorsement; it is not attestation unless done with intent to attest.
Section 100 TPA: A charge may exist without the formal attestation requirements that apply to a mortgage; it can arise by decree.

Facts (Timeline)

See image

Security bond executed: A security bond was created to secure a decree amount against properties.

Signatures on record: The bond bore signatures of the Sub-Registrar and identifying witnesses as part of registration.

Dispute on attestation: The executant had only one person who signed as a true attesting witness; others signed for registration/identification.

Decree and execution: The High Court’s decree recorded a charge over properties; sale proceeds were used to clear the appellant’s encumbrance.

Competing claims: Other creditors sought rateable distribution under Section 73 CPC.

Timeline infographic of key steps in Abdul Jabbar Sahib case

Arguments

Appellant

Registrar and identifiers did not sign as attesting witnesses; no animus attestandi.
Despite defective attestation, the decree created a valid charge enforceable in execution.
Sale proceeds should first discharge the appellant’s encumbrance; no rateable distribution.

Respondent

Signatures during registration should count as attestation.
If the bond fails, there is no valid charge; sale proceeds should be shared rateably under Section 73 CPC.
Jurisdictional objection raised to execution by the High Court.

Judgment (Held)

See image

Attestation invalid: The Sub-Registrar signed in discharge of duty under Section 59 Registration Act. Identifying witnesses signed only to confirm identity. They did not sign to attest execution. Hence, only one true attesting witness.
Charge valid: The decree created a valid charge over the properties. Section 100 TPA does not demand mortgage-like formalities such as attestation.
Rateable distribution denied: Because the sale satisfied the appellant’s prior encumbrance, others could not claim Section 73 CPC distribution.
Jurisdiction objection waived: Territorial objection not raised earlier was treated as waived.
Appeals allowed: Single Judge’s order restored.

Graphic showing 'Held' points for Abdul Jabbar Sahib case

Ratio Decidendi

Attestation needs conscious intent to attest. A registering officer’s endorsement is not attestation by itself. A charge under Section 100 TPA can be created without the attestation formalities of a mortgage and may arise through a decree. Therefore, a defective attestation did not defeat the decree-created charge.

Why It Matters

Clarifies difference between registration and attestation.
Confirms that a decree-created charge can stand even if a security document fails attestation.
Guides execution courts on priority vs. rateable distribution.

Key Takeaways

Intent matters: Witnesses must sign to attest execution, not merely to identify.
Registrar ≠ Attestor: Sub-Registrar’s statutory signature is not attestation.
Charge survives: A decree can create a valid charge without mortgage-style attestation.
Priority first: Encumbrance holder gets paid before any rateable distribution under Section 73 CPC.
Raise objections early: Territorial jurisdiction objections can be waived if not timely raised.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “AIM–C” — Attestation needs Intent, Mortgage rules don’t bind a Charge.

Spot: Who signed and why did they sign?
Split: Separate registration acts from attestation acts.
Secure: If attestation fails, check for a decree-created charge to secure recovery.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the bond validly attested under Section 3 TPA? Did the decree create a valid charge? Could others claim rateable distribution under Section 73 CPC?

Rule

Attestation requires two witnesses with animus attestandi. Registrar’s signature under s.59 Registration Act is not attestation per se. A charge under s.100 TPA can exist without mortgage formalities.

Application

Registrar and identifiers signed for registration/identity, not to attest execution. Only one true attesting witness. Yet, the decree created a valid charge, which had priority over other claims.

Conclusion

Attestation invalid; charge valid; no rateable distribution; jurisdiction objection waived; appeals allowed.

Glossary

Attestation: Witness signs to confirm the executant signed the document.
Animus Attestandi: The intention to attest execution, not just to identify.
Charge (s.100 TPA): A right over property to secure payment; less rigid than a mortgage.
Rateable Distribution (s.73 CPC): Sharing of sale proceeds among decree-holders when conditions are met.