Rameshchandra vs Kasturchand - 1996 Supreme(MP) 1055

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ku. Jyoti Yeotikar
For the Non-Applicant : H.M. Zelawat

Headnote:(1) Registration Act, 1908 – – S. 49 – – registered mortgage deed – endorsement of redemption can be exhibited even if such endorsement is not registered.
       (2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – – S. 60 – – redemption of usufructuary mortgage – – endorsement relating to such redemption not necessarily registrable.
       (3) Registration Act, 1908 – – S. 17 – – registrable document not registered – – can still be received as evidence of any transaction affecting property.
        Short Note
       1. Applicant/defendants have 'directed this revision against the order dated 28.3.1995 passed by the Civil Judge, Class – II, Sanawad, district Khargone in Civil Suit No. 46 – A of 87, thereby admitting the endorsement appended to mortgage deed, Exh. P/4 for collaterally purposes under section 49 of the Registration Act.
       2. The facts of the case, stated in brief, are that plaintiff/Non – applicants have filed a suit against the applicant/defendants for ejectment from the suit – house. It is stated that disputed house was mortgaged by ancestor of the plaintiffs to one Basubai wd/o Fulchand Seth of Khandwa in the year 1944, vide registered deed of mortgage Exh. P – 4. The said mortgagee inducted father of the applicant in the suit – house as tenant in the year, 1962. It is also stated that present Non – applicant/plaintiffs paid mortgage amount to the daughter, Dagdibai, LR of original mortgagee, Basubai, redeeming the house from the mortgagee. After redemption, plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment against the applicants under the Provisions of Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
       3. During the course of evidence, alleged mortgage – deed along with endorsement, receipt of money and redemption of mortgage given on mortgage – deed by Dagdibai was tendered in the evidence on behalf of the Non – applicants/plaintiffs. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendant/applicants that as the endorsement on the alleged mortgage – deed, Exh. P/4, is not registered, the document and the endorsement is inadmissible in evidence as per section 17/49 of the Registration Act. The trial Court admitted endorsement only for collateral purpose in view of the Provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this revision petition against the impugned order of the trial Court.
       4. I have heard Ku. Jyoti Yeotikar learned counsel for the applicants and Shri H.M. Zelawat learned counsel for Non – applicants.
       5. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that mortgage of immovable property is transferred on interest in the immoveable property under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and when mortgage amount is exceeding Rs. 100/ – , deed of mortgage is compulsory registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act. She also contended that when mortgage is redeemed, the interest in the immoveable property is transferred back to the mortgagor and therefore, the endorsement purporting redemption of the mortgage is also compulsory registrable under the provisions of Registration Act. As the endorsement on Exh. P/4 is not registered, the endorsement cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose.
       6. In oppugnation, learned counsel for the Non – applicant/plaintiffs contended that firstly the endorsement appended to the registered mortgage – deed purporting receipt of money redeeming the property from the mortgage is not compulsorily registrable. Even otherwise, the endorsement if not registered can be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose under section 49 of the Registration Act to prove the status of the plaintiff in the disputed house.
       7. On perusal of the impugned order and endorsement given on mortgage – deed, Exh. P/4, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court admitting the endorsement for collateral purpose under section 49 of the Registration Act, is not suffering from any infirmity or illegality. The endorsement though not registered can be admitted in evidence, for collateral purpose to show the nature of possession and the status of the plaintiff with regard to the disputed house.
       8. In AIR 1981 SC 1937, Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo and others the Supreme Court has held that the document which requires registration within the meaning of section 17 of the Registration Act if not registered, can be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso to Sec. 49, however, permits the use of the document even though unregistered as evidence of any collateral transaction, not required to be effected by registered instrument and can be looked into for collateral purpose ascertaining the nature of possession.
       9. In Chandprakash v. Badrilal; 1982 MPWN SN 32, this Court has held that the endorsement on the mortgage – deed with regard to redemption of usufructuary mortgage, the registration is not necessary. The endorsement on the mortgage – deed to that effect is sufficient.
       10. In view of the aforesaid position of law, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any illegality or any irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in admitting the endorsement on the mortgage – deed, Exh. P/4 for collateral purpose by the impugned order. As such the impugned order needs no interference.
       11. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of any substance and merit and the same is accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs.