Judgement This is an appeal by the principal defendants who lost in both the courts below. The plaintiffs suit was for declaration of title and recovery of khas possession of the land in suit. 2. The facts material for the purpose of this appeal may be stated as follows: 1 Bigha 3 Kathas of land belonging to one Abdur Rezak, was let out to one Krista Bhuimali. Krista Bhuimali sold 10 kathas thereof to pro forma-defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and 2 ½ kathas to pro forma-defendant No. 5 who sold the area to pro forma-defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Thus pro forma defendants Nos. 3 and 4 became the owner of 12 ½ kathas of land. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 then sold this area of 12 ½ kathas to the plaintiff by two registered sale deeds (Exts. 1 and 2) on 28-6-1957 and delivered possession thereof. The principal defendants (the appellants) dispossessed the plaintiff from and constructed houses on, the suit land described in Schedule Ga to the plaint. Hence the suit. 3. The principal defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed a written statement. They have denied the plaintiffs allegation. Their case is that they took settlement of the land from Abdur Rezak in 1956 but they purchased it in 1959 from him. 4. After trial the learned Munsiff held that the plaintiff failed to prove title to the suit land and he dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Sub-Judge held that the plaintiff has proved Exts. 1 and 2, the deeds of purchase of the disputed land from defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who had become the rightful owner of the land after purchase. It was contended before him that the land was within the jurisdiction of Dhubri Sub-Registry and Exts. 1 and 2 having been registered at Kokrajhar, they were invalid documents and created no title in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Sub-Judge, therefore, remanded the matter to the Munsiff to decide whether Dhubri and Kokrajhar sub-registries had concurrent jurisdiction, as contended by the plaintiff. He directed the trial court to give opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidence. It was further directed that if the Court was satisfied on evidence that "both Dhubri and Kokrajhar Sub-Registry had concurrent jurisdiction", then the Court will hold that the plaintiff had right, and title over the suit land and decree the plaintiffs suit. 5. He directed the trial court to give opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidence. It was further directed that if the Court was satisfied on evidence that "both Dhubri and Kokrajhar Sub-Registry had concurrent jurisdiction", then the Court will hold that the plaintiff had right, and title over the suit land and decree the plaintiffs suit. 5. After the order of remand the learned Munsiff held that Dhubri and Kokrajhar Sub-Registries had concurrent jurisdiction at the relevant time, but he held that the plaintiff failed to prove title over the suit land, with the result that he dismissed the suit. 6. On appeal the Assistant District Judge concurred with the finding of the Munsiff that Dhubri and Kokrajhar Sub-Registries had concurrent jurisdiction, but he set aside the other finding of the Munsiff, namely, that the plaintiff had failed to prove title to the land, on the ground that this finding of the learned Munsiff was beyond the scope of order of remand, and decreed the suit. In my opinion this finding of the learned Munsiff was rightly set aside by the Assistant District Judge, as the order of remand, as indicated above, allowed him only limited scope namely, to find whether the above-named two sub-registries had concurrent jurisdiction. If the answer was in the affirmative, he was directed to decree the suit; he could not hold that the plaintiff failed to prove title to the suit land, and dismiss the suit. The defendants have now come on appeal. 7. (It may be mentioned at this stage that the learned trial Judge carelessly marked three sets of documents as Exts. 1 and 2. The first set of Exts. 1 and 2 are writ and map, respectively. We are not concerned with these two documents, in this appeal. The second set of Exts. 1 and 2 are the sale deeds by which the plaintiff claims to have purchased the land. To avoid confusion we shall hereinbelow designate these two exhibits as sale deeds Exts. 1 and 2. The third Ext. 1 is the letter No. O-3/51/5286-R dated 6-12-55. We shall designate it as letter Ext. 1. The third Ext. 2 is the notification dated 29th July, 1952, referred to above. We shall designate it as notification Ext. 2). 8. The only point for decision in this appeal is whether Sale Deeds Exts. 1 and 2 have been validly registered. 1 is the letter No. O-3/51/5286-R dated 6-12-55. We shall designate it as letter Ext. 1. The third Ext. 2 is the notification dated 29th July, 1952, referred to above. We shall designate it as notification Ext. 2). 8. The only point for decision in this appeal is whether Sale Deeds Exts. 1 and 2 have been validly registered. Shri B. K. Das, counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that Sale Deeds Exts. 1 and 2 have created no title in favour of the plaintiff, inasmuch as they have been registered at Kokrajhar which was not, counsel submits, a validly constituted Sub-Registry and had otherwise no territorial jurisdiction to register the deeds. He has based his submissions on three grounds: (i) that "concurrent jurisdiction of two sub-registries is unkonwn to the Registration Act"; (ii) that the Notification Ext. 2 is invalid as it has not been published in the Official Gazette; and (iii) that the Letter Ext. 1 is a mere inter-departmental letter and is no notification in accordance with Sec. 7 (1) of the Indian Registration Act (hereinafter called the Act), and has created no Sub-Registry at Kokrajhar at the relevant time. He further submits that Letter Ext. 1 is not in compliance with Article 166 of the Constitution and as such ineffective. 9. To repeat the moot point for decision in this appeal is whether the Sale Deeds Ext. 1 and Ext. 2 have been validly registered. In other words, whether the Sub-Registry at Kokrajhar had the jurisdiction to register these two documents. If the answer be in the affirmative, it is not contended, as it cannot be, that Sale Deeds Exts. 1 and 2 have created valid title to the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. 10. Under Section 28 of the Act a document compulsorily registrable under Section 17 or that may be registered under Section 18 of the Act "shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate." "Sub-district" has been defined under sub-section (3) of S. 2 of the Act as meaning "a sub-district formed under this Act." Section 49 of the Act, inter alia, provides: "49. No document required by Sec. 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered shall- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b)........................ (c) be received as evidence of any transaction, affecting such property............ unless it has been registered: Provided ....................." A plain reading of Section 28 read with Section 49 leads to the conclusion that the provision of Section 28 is mandatory. In other words if a sale deed is registered by the Sub-Registrar of a sub-district having no territorial jurisdiction it is void and creates no title. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on Section 87 of the Act, which provides: "87. Nothing done in good faith pursuant to this Act or any Act hereby repealed, by any registering officer, shall be deemed invalid merely by reason of any defect in his appointment or procedure." Section 87 saves documents registered by any registering officer, in whose appointment there may be some defect or there may be defect in the procedure followed in the registration; it does not save registration of documents by a Sub-Registrar in whose sub-district the land transferred is not situate. Section 87, in my opinion, has no application to the instant case, as the question here is not one of defect in the appointment of the Sub-Registrar at Kokrajhar, or any defect in the procedure followed in the registration, but the question is one of jurisdiction. 11. Part II of the Act deals with the Registration Establishment. Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of this Part, are relevant and they may be referred to. Section 3 gives power to the State Government to appoint an Inspector General of Registration. Sections 5, 6 and 7 may be quoted: "5. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the State Government shall form districts and sub-districts, and shall prescribe, and may alter, the limits of such districts and sub-districts. (2) The district and sub-districts formed under this section, together with the limits thereof, and every alteration of such limits, shall be notified in the Official Gazette. (3) Every such alteration shall take effect on such day after the date of the notification as is therein mentioned. 6. (2) The district and sub-districts formed under this section, together with the limits thereof, and every alteration of such limits, shall be notified in the Official Gazette. (3) Every such alteration shall take effect on such day after the date of the notification as is therein mentioned. 6. The State Government may appoint such persons, whether public officers or not, as it think proper, to be Registrars of the several districts, and to be Sub-Registrars of the several sub-districts, formed as aforesaid respectively. 7. (1) The State Government shall establish in every district an office to be styled the office of the Registrar and in every sub-district an office or offices to be styled the office of the Sub-Registrar or the offices of the Joint Sub-Registrars. (2) ....................." 12. At this stage we are to revert to Notification Ext. 2 and Letter Ext. 1. The relevant portion of Notification Ext. 2 may be quoted: "ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPTT. REGISTRATION BRANCH NOTIFICATION Shillong, the 29th July, 1952 No. LRG. 49/51/19:- Under the provisions of Section 7 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908), the Governor of Assam is pleased to sanction as an experimental measure for three years with effect from the 1st August, 1952, the opening at Kokrajhar in the district of Goalpara, of the office of an ex-officio. Sub-Registrar having concurrent jurisdiction with the Dhubri Sub-Registry Office. No. LRG.49/51/19A:- Shri Chandi Charan Barman, Extra-Assistant Commissioner at Kokrajhar in the district of Goalpara, is appointed, in addition to his own duties, to be the Sub-Registrar of Kokrajhar in the same district, with effect from the 1st August, 1952. Sd. I. Majid Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Local Self-Govt. Deptt." The appellant submits that this notification has not been published in the official gazette as required by Section 5 (2) and as such it has not validly created a sub-district at Kokrajhar. This is true. And in fact the Government have not purported to create any sub-district at Kokrajhar by notification Ext. 2, which is obviously not under Section 5 of the Act. The Notification Ext. 2 is expressly under Section 7 of the Act. Under second part of the notification Shri Chandi Charan Barman, Extra-Assistant Commissioner at Kokrajhar was appointed "Sub-Registrar of Kokrajhar in the same district" of Goalpara. 2, which is obviously not under Section 5 of the Act. The Notification Ext. 2 is expressly under Section 7 of the Act. Under second part of the notification Shri Chandi Charan Barman, Extra-Assistant Commissioner at Kokrajhar was appointed "Sub-Registrar of Kokrajhar in the same district" of Goalpara. Under Section 6, the State Government can appoint a Registrar for districts and sub-registrars for sub-districts and Shri Barman E. A. C. a public officer was appointed a sub-registrar under this Section. 13. Section 7 (1) of the Act gives power to the State Government to establish, inter alia, in every sub-district an office or number of offices to be styled the "office of the Sub-Registrar or offices of the Joint Sub-Registrars". The Government has been given power to create a number of offices of Sub-Registrars in the same district. No procedure has been prescribed for such establishment. The State Government therefore can do it by an executive order. 14. Before the Kokrajhar Sub-division of the District of Goalpara was created the disputed land fell within the jurisdiction of the sub-district of Dhubri for the purpose of registration. Kokrajhar is not a sub-district under the Registration Act, but is admittedly within the sub-district of Dhubri with another office of a Sub-Registrar established under sub-section (1) of S. 7 of the Act. In my opinion, therefore, by Notification Ext. 2, not a sub-district of Kokrajhar was formed by the Government, but an additional office of Sub-Registrar was created for three years with effect from 1st August, 1952. 15. The second ground of attack of Shri Das was that even if the office at Kokrajhar was validly created by the Notification, Ext. 2, the office was not validly created for the further period of three years, inasmuch as, he submits, Letter Ext. 1 is not in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the Act, and further it is not in compliance with Article 166. This Letter Ext. 1 was issued from the office of the Inspector General of Registration, Assam, and was addressed to the District-Registrar, Goalpara. Along with this document, a copy of the letter No. LRG.49/51/29, dated 14-11-55 from the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Settlement Department, Assam, to the Inspector General of Registration, Assam, was forwarded. The relevant portion thereof contained in Letter Ext. Along with this document, a copy of the letter No. LRG.49/51/29, dated 14-11-55 from the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Settlement Department, Assam, to the Inspector General of Registration, Assam, was forwarded. The relevant portion thereof contained in Letter Ext. 1 itself, may be quoted: "Sub :-Retention of the Kokrajhar Sub-Registry Office on ex-officio basis and its staff. Ref :- Your No. 0-3/52/2297-R dated 11-7-1955. I am directed to convey the sanction of the Governor of Assam to the retention of the following for a further period of three years with effect from the 14th August, 1955. 1. The Ex-Officio Sub-Registry Office at Kokrajhar in the District of Goalpara. 2. The E. A. C. of Kokrajhar as its Ex-Officio Sub-Registrar. 3. One office assistant in the usual scale of pay. 4. One peon in the usual scale of pay. …. …. … … By order etc., SD/- U. K. Sarma, Under Secretary to the Government of Assam." Shri Das submits that this is not in compliance with Section 7 (1) of the Act and, therefore, it creates no office at Kokrajhar at the relevant time. Here the requirement is that the State Government can establish an office or a number of offices in the same sub-district as observed above, but the executive action must be taken in the name of the Governor, as enjoined by Article 166 of the Constitution, which provides: "166. (1) All executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor." This Article is directory and not mandatory and no particular form has been prescribed, in which the executive action shall be taken. (See AIR 1964 SC 1823 ). In AIR 1952 SC 181 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act have held: "It is well settled that generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. (See AIR 1964 SC 1823 ). In AIR 1952 SC 181 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act have held: "It is well settled that generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the main object of the legislature, it has been the practice of the Courts to hold such provisions to be directory only the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done." Shri Das submits that this order of the Government was not expressed in the name of the Governor and, therefore, it was in violation of the provisions of Art. 166. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1952 SC 317 have interpreted the word expressed : "One of the meanings of expressed is to make known the opinions or the feelings of a particular person and when a Secretary to Government apprehends a man and tells him in the order that it is being done under the order of the Governor, he is in substance saying that he is acting in the name of the Governor and, on his behalf, is making known to the detenu the opinion and feelings and orders of the Governor. The Constitution does not require a magic incantation which can only be expressed in a set formula of words. What the court has to see is whether the substance of the requirements of Article 166 (1) is there." 16. The Constitution does not require a magic incantation which can only be expressed in a set formula of words. What the court has to see is whether the substance of the requirements of Article 166 (1) is there." 16. In the instant case the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam stated that he was directed to convey the sanction of the Governor of Assam to the retention of the office of the Sub-Registrar for a further period of three years with effect from 14th August, 1955, and his signature was preceded by "By order etc." Instead of saying he was directed to convey the sanction of the Governor of Assam to the retention of the office of the Sub-Registrar, the same thing might have also been expressed in the following terms: "The Governor of Assam is pleased to sanction the retention of the following for a further period of three years with effect from 14th of August, 1955 etc." The Constitution has not prescribed any particular formula or words for the compliance of Article 166 (1) as stated above. What the Court has to see is whether the substance of the requirement has been complied with. In my opinion Letter Ext. 1 is expressed in the name of the Governor and is in compliance of Article 166 of the Constitution. It must be held that an office of a Joint Sub-Registrar in the Sub-District of Dhubri was validly established at Kokrajhar. It is for the authority to decide administratively documents of which area of the Dhubri Sub-district will be registered at Dhubri, and of which area at Kokrajhar. There is no bar for the authority to allow either Sub-Registrars office to register a document from any area of the sub-district. The legal mandatory requirement is that the land of the deed must be situate within the Dhubri Sub-District. What was meant by "concurrent jurisdiction" of the Sub-Registrar at Kokrajhar with the Sub-Registrar at Dhubri as used in Notification Ext. 2 is that either of the Sub-Registrars was empowered to register a document involving land situate in any part of the Sub-District of Dhubri. This was necessary as the office at Kokrajhar was on an experimental basis. There can be no valid objection to it. It must, in the circumstance, be held that the Sale Deeds, Exts. 2 is that either of the Sub-Registrars was empowered to register a document involving land situate in any part of the Sub-District of Dhubri. This was necessary as the office at Kokrajhar was on an experimental basis. There can be no valid objection to it. It must, in the circumstance, be held that the Sale Deeds, Exts. 1 and 2, were validly registered at Kokrajhar and they are good documents of title. 17. In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. I, however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.