JUDGMENT

Birch, J. - The first Court found that the plaintiff's bond was a forged document, and for that reason dismissed the suit without going into the question of the validity of the deed of sale propounded by Soodharam. On appeal the Judge held that the bond was genuine; he also held that the deed of sale was a well-attested deed, and that the bond did not interfere with it. He was of opinion that Soodharam must be considered to have bought the tank encumbered with the mortgage; and that the registered deed of sale could not prevail over the unregistered mortgage-bond. His order is not clear, but the only interpretation to be put upon it is that he gave the plaintiff a decree for the sum due, confirming his right as mortgagee of the tank.

2. Soodharam appeals, and it is urged on his behalf that the Judge is wrong in holding that the registered deed of sale does not prevail over the unregistered deed of mortgage.

3. There can be no doubt that, immediately after his purchase Soodharam obtained possession of the tank. The plaintiff raised no objection to the change of possession. He comes into Court upon an unregistered bond nearly twelve years after its execution. He is met by an allegation of possession under a registered deed of sale by his mortgagor to Soodharam. We think that there can be no doubt that the registered deed of sale must prevail over the unregistered mortgage-deed. The question is governed by s. 50 of Act XX of 1866. That section provides that "every instrument of the kinds mentioned in cls. 1, 2, and 3 of s. 18 shaft if duly registered, take effect as regards property comprised therein against every unregistered instrument relating to the same property, whether such other instrument be of the same nature as the registered instrument or not;" and if it applies, then the plaintiffs mortgage-bond being unregistered cannot prevail against the defendant Soodharam's purchase-deed, which, though of later date, was duly registered. It seems to us to be a reasonable construction of the Act that it does apply to such a case. It is contended that is does not, because the mortage-bond was executed before the Act came into operation. But the provisions of this section are not new. The principles of them is contained in the previous Acts XIX of 1843, s. 2, and XVI of 1864, s. 68.

4. If these provisions of the Registration Act did not apply to instruments previously executed, the law of registration would be full of anomalies, and titles which were once secure would become insecure when a new Registration Act was pasted. Had it been intended that these provisions should not be so far retrospective, the successive Acts, when repealed, would have been kept in force in this respect as to documents already executed. When Act XIX of 1843 was passed, express provision was made that these provisions should not apply to documents executed before a certain date. No such provision is contained in the subsequent Acts. But the explanation of s. 50 in the present Act (VIII of 1871) clearly assumes that the Act applies to deeds already in existence.

5. The respondent has relied on the decision in the case of Girija Singh v. Giridhari Singh 1 B.L.R., A.C., 14 but that case is we think distinguishable. Macpherson, J., there says distinctly that, "if it were a mere question, as to which deed was to be given effect to, the plaintiff (who had purchased under a prior unregistered bill of sale) is not entitled to recover," i.e., to recover as against the defendant who had purchased under a subsequent bill of sale which had been duly registered. But the learned Judge goes on to show that the first purchaser had been eleven years in possession, and that therefore his position was "far stronger than if he were seeking possession for the first time under his deed of sale: and the question is not merely one as to the effect to be given to the deed as against a deed of later date;" and Bayley, J., also relies on the fact that the unregistered purchaser