The judgment establishes the distinction between preventive and remedial measures under the C.P. Tenancy Act, emphasizing the intention of the legislature to provide cheap and expeditious remedies for unauthorized transfers in the Revenue Courts.

Niyogi, A J C—This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent to recover possession of some fields. The suit was dismissed in the Court of first instance but has been decreed on appeal. The defendant has therefore preferred this second appeal. The respondent is a lambardar of Mauza Jagatpura. The fields in suit were originally held by Lachhiram and Popat in occupancy right, but they surrendered them to the plaintiff's co-sharer by name Ratan on 19th December 1927, by a registered deed of surrender. Ratan leased the fields to the defendant on 30th December 1927. The plaintiff described the defendant as a rank trespasser, but subsequently admitted that Lachhiram and Popat had transferred the fields in suit to his co-sharer Ratan on 19th December 1927, and that he had not made any application for setting aside the transfer under S. 13, C.P. Tenancy Act. The original Court held that the plaintiff's remedy lay in the Revenue Court and not in the Civil Court. It therefore dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court differing from the Court of first instance held that the civil Court had jurisdiction and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On behalf of the appellant it is urged that inasmuch as the so-called surrender in favour of Ratan on 19th December 1927, was in reality a transfer, the plaintiff's only remedy was to have applied for setting aside that transfer under S. 13, C.P. Tenancy Act, 1920. On the other hand, it is urged for the respondent that under S. 12, sub-S. (4),. C.P. Tenancy Act, the instrument of transfer ought not to have been admitted to registration and that it must be regarded as null and void. On this footing, it is pressed that, as there was no 'transfer' at all, S. 13, C.P. Tenancy Act, has no applicability. The issue is not free from difficulty, but the respondent's contention does not appeal to me. In every case of transfer of occupancy land effected by a registered deed it is possible to raise the plea that the registration is void and there is no transfer. This plea, if admitted, virtually renders S. 13, C.P. Tenancy Act, nugatory. If the registering officer refuses to register the document but the tenant delivers physical possession of the holding, S. 13 can have obviously no application. This was the casein 17 C.P.L.R. 49 Chamru Sao Bania v. Tulsidin Singh,1904 17 CPLR 49. If, however, by fraud or inadvertence he registers the document and the registration is held to be void, no case can ever arise for the operation of S. 13, when the value of the holding is Rs. 100 or upwards. In 8 N.L.R. 22 Ganeshdas v. Shankar,1912 8 NLR 22. Stanyon, A.J.C. held in a case of a mortgage by an occupancy tenant that the revenue Court alone had jurisdiction to set aside the transfer, notwithstanding the finding of the Court below that the registration of the mortgage deed was void. After some consideration I find myself in full agreement with this view. The policy underlying S. 12, C.P. Tenancy Act is to prohibit transfers of occupancy holding, and to prevent such transfers, it authorises the registering officer (notwithstanding the Registration Act) to withhold registration of documents which purport to transfer such holdings. This provision is intended ex majore cautela to operate as a safeguard against transfers by ignorant cultivators. Even though the illegality of the transfer escapes the vigilance of the registering officer, and he registers it in spite of the prohibition contained in S. 12, that would not preclude the application of S. 13, C.P. Tenancy Act. The wording of the Section is: If an occupancy tenant transfers his right in his holding or any portion thereof in contravention of 8. 12, etc.

2. Now there can be no transfer without a registered document if the value of the property affected by the transfer is Rs. 100 or upwards. The word 'transfer' by necessary implication signifies registration which imparts validity to the instrument of transfer. As both the transfer of occupancy holding and t