JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - The plaintiff-appellant, Bhabi Dutt, obtained a decree against Appasola, a Hindu widow, as the legal representative of her deceased husband, f unar Ram, and in execution of that decree he attached certain cattle which formed part of the estate of his deceased debtor. The defendant-respondent, Ramlalbyamal, applied for removal of attachment on the ground that these cattle had been sold outright to him by Appasola and that they were in his possession, and the attachment was removed. Then the plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit against the defendant-respondent, under Order 21, R. 63, Civil P.C., for a declaration of his fight to attach and bring to sale these cattle in execution of his decree. His suit was decreed in the Sub-divisional Court of Mogok, but this decision was reversed on appeal to the District Court, of Katha.

2. It appears that prior to his death on the 7th day of February 1931, Punar Jiam purported to mortgage to the respondent, Ramlalbyamal, for a consideration of Rs. 15,000, 28 cows, 16 gloats, a holding of garden land and a dwelling house and cattle shed built thereon. The mortgage document was written on a sheet of stamp paper, but was not registered. On 14th December 1931, after the death of Punar Ram, his widow Appasola purported to sell outright to the respondent the whole of this movable and immovable property for the amount then due on the mortgage and a further cash advance of Rs. 350. The document embodying the terms of this alleged sale was written on the reverse of the mortgage document. Neither document was registered.

3. Now, it is quite clear that, so far as the immovable property was concerned, both these documents were inadmissible in evidence to prove either the mortgage or the sale, and they are equally inadmissible even as regards the claim in respect of movable property, for where movable as well as immovable property is transferred by a document for a single consideration, which document, though compulsorily registrable in order to affect the immovable property, is not registered, it is equally ineffectual to affect movable property, the reason being that the document embodies one transaction for one consideration and there is no separate transaction concerning the movable property: C. Bevan Petman v. Ganesh Das 1916 Lah. 372 and Bisheshar Lal v. Mt. Bhuri 1920 Lah. 20. Consequently, neither the mortgage document nor the document of outright sale was effectual to transfer any interest in these cattle, and, as the terms of these transactions have been reduced to writing, neither the mortgage nor the sale can be proved by oral evidence. In reply to the argument that the ownership of this property was not affected by the two documents in question, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the doctrine of part performance as now laid down in Section 53-A, T.P. Act, but the doctrine of part performance can have no relation under any circumstances to movable property. Consequently, the sale of these cattle to the respondent has not been proved and therefore they still remain part of the estate of the deceased Punar Ram. This conclusion is sufficient to dispose of this appeal, but I desire to remark that it is clear that in the transaction of 14th December 1931, the respondent over-reached the ignorant widow Appasola, and was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining her signature to this document. There is clear evidence that the property purported to be transferred to him was in value considerably in excess of the amount due to him by the deceased plus the amount advanced by him to the widow in cash, and that he obtained her signature on this document by representing that if all the assets of the deceased were transferred to him he would make himself responsible for payment of the dues of all other creditors of the deceased. This undertaking he has failed to carry out. The judgment and decree of the District Court, Katha, cannot be supported and they are rev