A stakeholder of a kurivari entered into an agreement with the subscribers and created a charge over certain of his properties for the benefit of the subscribers, presumably to afford them some security for such of their moneys as might be in his hands. He later mortgaged the same property to the third defendant, whose rights subsequently devolved on the eleventh defendant, who is the appellant here.

The contesting respondents in this appeal are two subscribers, one of whom is the plaintiff, who sued for the return of the money subscribed by him. Some difficulty has been created in this case because of a mistake made by the registration department in recording this mortgage in Book No. IV instead of in Book No. I. Two points have been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first is that on account of this mistake of the registration department it would have been impossible for him to have obtained any information, had he so applied, of this charge and that it is not therefore binding on him. The second point argued was that it is shown in the plaint itself that the old contract, including the arrangement for the creating of a charge on the land, came to an end