CHHANGANI, J.—This is plaintiffs first appeal from the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Balotra dated 20.8.58 dismissing the plaintiff appellants suit for the enforcement of a mortgage. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. One of the questions raised before the Division Bench related to the invalidity of the registration on account of the non compliance with the provisiocs of secs. 35 and 61 of the Marwar Registration Act which are similar to the provisions of the Indian Registration Act except for some changes in sec. 35 of the Marwar Registration Act. A question relating to the validity of the registration deed on account of the non presentation of the deed and non admission made by some of the executants of a deed arose before a Division Bench in Civil First Appeal No 30 of 1957 : Bhaniram vs. Mukandass and was referred to the Full Bench. Having regard to this reference, the present appeal was also directed to be heard by a Full Bench by the order of the Chief Justice dated 6.10.70. This is how, the appeal has come before the Full Bench.

2. The facts leading to the appeal are briefly these—

3. The plaintiff appellants instituted a suit in the court of District Judge, Balotra on 29.1.57 and set out their case as follows—

4. That defendants Mohanlal, Bhanwarlal and Champalal were members of a joint Hindu family, Mohanlal being the Karta. The plaintiffs however added in the plaint that they received information that after the execution of the mortgage deed dated 9.5 47 defendant No. 2 Bhanwarlal was adopted by Balkishan son of Lichmandass Maheshwari and that defendant No. 3 Champalal was adopted by Hazarimal son of Faujmal Maheshwari. The plaintiffs served notices on them requiring them to reply whether they admit or not their adoption but they gave no reply. Consequently, the plaintiffs impleaded them as defendants in the suit.

5. That on 9.5.47 defendant No. I Mohanlal in his capacity as a karta of the joint Hindu family took a loan of Rs. 25.000/- from the plaintiffs for their joint family business and mortgaged joint family properties consisting of two houses and one shop as described in para 4 (a) to (c) of the plaint Defendant No. 2 Bhanwarlal who was an adult joined in the transaction and signed the mortgage deed Ex. 1. Defendant No. 3 Champalal was a minor and, therefore, could not sign the mortgage deed. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 1 as a karta of the joint Hindu family presented the mortgage deed for registration and got it registered. The defendants agreed to pay interest on the mortgage money at Re. 0/7/- % per month, the annual interest amounting to Rs. 1,312/8/-. The defendants obtained a lease of the mortaged property and the defendants Nos. 1 & 2 executed a rent note Ex. 2 on 9.5.47 fixing annual rental of Rs. 1,312/8/-equivalent to the amount of annual interest. The plaintiffs alleged to have received an amount of Rs. 3,658/8/. till Asoj Bad 2 Samvat 2009 towards interest due under the mortgage deed. They received no payment thereafter. The interest from the date of the mortgage deed upto 5.2.57 was calculated at Rs. 14,922/8 and giving a credit of Rs. 3,658/8 the plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs. 36,264/- due under the mortgage upto 5.2 57. On the alleged adoption by Balkishan and Hazrimal of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and their ceasing to have any interest in the mortgaged properties, the plaintiffs treating the defendant No. 1 Mohanlal responsible for the liability under the mortgage and finding him also in possession of the mortgaged properties, demanded possession of the mortgaged properties, from him and also demanded interest. He refused to hand over the possession. On the refusal of the defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs also approached the defendants No. 2 and 3 but they replied that having gone in adoption had nothing to do with the mortgaged properties. The plaintiffs also alleged in the plaint that after the execution of the mortgage deed the ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document