ORDER

Mukerji, J. - This is an offshoot, as it were, of Second Appeal No. 1490 of 1926 decided by us on 8th November 1929, Nannu Mal v. Ramcharan Lal AIR 1930 All. It appears that in execution of a prior mortgage held by two persons Ram Charan Lal and Ganga Sahai, the mortgaged property was sold and was purchased partly by the prior mortgagees and partly by defendants 4 to 7 in the suit. There was a second mortgage in favour of Nannu Mal the plaintiff, although the deed stood benami in the name of Kundan Lal plaintiff 2. The second mortgagee was not a party to the suit of the prior mortgagee. The auction-purchasers Nos. 4 to 7 have built a small house on a part of the property purchased by them. Their contention is that either the plaintiff Nannu Mal should pay them the value of the building erected by them which value has been estimated at Rs. 200 or these defendants should be allowed to remove the materials of the building before the sale takes place.

2. The Court of first instance did not accede to the request of the defendants and they appealed to the lower appellate Court. There they succeeded, the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court holding that if plaintiff 1 wanted,

to enjoy the benefit of the enhancement in the security due to the constructions made by the appellants, he would have to pay a sum of Rs. 200 to the appellants before the chabutra with the structures thereon is put up for sale otherwise the appellants would be entitled to remove the materials without causing 'any detriment to the chabutra.

3. The plaintiff in this second appeal contends that the building erected by the auction-purchasers was in the nature of an accession to the property and it is therefore u/s 70, T.P. Act, liable to be sold as a part of the mortgaged property. In my opinion there is no answer to this contention. Section 70 has been very widely worded: it does not say by whom the accession should be made. The accession may be the result of nature or it may be effected by the mortgagor or any representative of his. So long as the accession takes place to the mortgaged property, the mortgagee is entitled to it for the purposes of security. Illus. (b) to Section 70, makes it perfectly clear to my mind that the putting up of a building on a part of the mortgaged property amounts to an accession. The mere fact that a transferee, by auction sale of the mortgagor's interest, has put up the building makes no difference at all.

4. The case of Kalyan Das Vs. Jan Bibi and Another, AIR 1929 All 12 has been cited before us as an authority for the proposition that a subsequent purchaser, who is unaware of the existence of the prior mortgage, and who erects a building in good faith, is entitled to remove the building. To start with, in this particular case there is no material before us to show that the auction-purchasers were not aware of the fact that the registered mortgage in favour of Nannu Mal existed as a matter of fact. Beyond saying that they were transferees by auction sale in good faith they never said that they were not aware of the fact that there was a second mortgage. It is the duty of any person dealing with property to find out from the registration office what charges there are on the property. This Court has over and over again held that registration is notice to all subsequent transferees. Therefore it was necessary for the auction-purchasers to find out, in their own interest, from the registration office before they made the purchase whether any mortgage existed on the property or not. There is no finding of fact to support a plea akin to the plea of Section 51, T.P. Act. Besides with all respect, I discover that Section 70, T. P Act, was not pleaded before their Lordships who decided the case of Kalyan Das. On the facts, in my opinion this case is distinguishable from the decision quoted above. If that were not so I would have respectfully dissented from the opinion expressed in that case. But it is really not necessary in view