http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: RAGHUNATH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KEDAR NATH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1969

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR 1316            1969 SCR  (3) 497  1969 SCC  (1) 497

ACT: Transfer  of  Property  Act,  1882,  ss.  4  and   54-Indian Registration  Act,  1908, s. 49 as amended  by  Transfer  of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, s.  10-Section 4  of  T.P.  Act whether makes s.  49  of  Registration  Act applicable to documents compulsorily registrable under s. 54 of  T.P.  Act-Unregistered sale-deed whether  admissible  in evidence. Construction of documents-Mortgage or sale. Practice-High  Court  in  appeal whether  can  give  further relief than given to plaintiff by trial court when plaintiff did not file appeal against decree of trial court.

HEADNOTE: D  took  a  loan  of  Rs.  1700/-  from  M,  father  of  the defendants.  On 27th July 1922, D along with his grandmother executed  a possessory mortgage deed (Ex.4) in respect of  a house  for the amount of the aforesaid loan in favour of  M. On  23rd February 1953, D’s heir sold the said house to  the plaintiffs who filed a suit for redemption of the house  and for  accounts.  The defendants who were sons of  M  resisted the suit on the ground that Ex. 4 was not a deed of mortgage though- apparently so.  According to them when read with Ex. 26  which  was executed in October 1922 it was  an  outright sale.   The  trial  court decreed the  plaintiffs  suit  for redemption  on payment of an amount fixed by it.  The  first Appellate  Court allowed the defendants’ appeal.   The  High Court when finally disposing of the second appeal set  aside the  judgment of the lower appellate court and restored  the judgment  of  the  trial  court.   The  High  Court  further remanded  the  case to the lower appellate  court  with  the direction  that "the defendants be asked to render  accounts before they claim any payment from the plaintiff at the time of the redemption of the mortgage".  In appeals before  this Court the contentions on behalf of the defendants appellants were  :  (i)  That Ex. 4 was really a sale deed  and  not  a mortgage  deed and it should be read with Ex. 26; (ii)  That s. 4 of the Transfer of   Property Act did not make s. 49 of the  Registration Act applicable to  documents  compulsorily registrable  by the provisions of s. 54 paragraph 2  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

Transfer  of  Property  Act, and  therefore  Ex.  26  though unregistered was not inadmissible in evidence; (iii) That in any  case since the respondents (plaintiffs) had  not  filed any  appeal against the decree of the trial court, the  High Court should not have granted them further relief as it  did by giving a direction that the defendants should be asked to render  accounts  before  they  claimed  payment  from   the plaintiff at the time of the redemption. of the mortgage. HELD  : (i) The terms of Ex. 4 clearly showed that it was  a mortgage deed and not a sale deed. (ii)Ex. 4 could not be read with Ex. 26 because the  latter was required to be registered under s. 54 of the Transfer of Property  Act.   In the absence of  such  registration  this document  could  not  be  received  in    evidence  of   any transaction  affecting the property in view of s. 29 of  the Registration Act. [500 B-501 E] The contention that s. 4 of the Transfer of Property Act did not make s.    49  of  the Registration  Act  applicable  to transactions under s. 54 para- 498 graph  2  of  the Transfer’ of Property  Act  could  not  be accepted.  Any doubt in this respect was removed by s. 10 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Art, 1929 which-introduced the words "by any provision of the Transfer of  Property  Act, 1882" in s. 49 of the  Registration  Act. This  amendment  made  it clear that the  documents  in  the supplemental  list i.e. the documents of which  registration is  necessary  under the Transfer of Property  Act  but  not under the Registration Act fall within the scope of  section 49  of the Registration Act, and if not are  registered  are not  admissible in evidence of a transaction  affecting  any immovable  property comprised therein and do not affect  any such immovable property. [503 F-504 B] Sohan Lal & Ors. v. Mohan Lal & Ors., I.L.R. 50 All. 986 and Rama Sahu v. Gowro Ratho, I.L.R. [1921] 44 Mad. 55, referred to. (iii)The appellants were right in contending that  when the plaintiff had not filed an appeal against the decree of- the trial court the High Court was not legally justified  in giving further relief to the plaintiff than that granted  by the  trial court.  Accordingly the portion of the decree  of the  High  Court remanding the case to the  lower  appellate court  with a direction that the defendants should be  asked to render accounts, was liable to be set aside. [504 D-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  457  and 458 of 1966. Appeals, by special leave from the judgment and order  dated April 27, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals Nos. 4940 and 3660 of 1961. S. P. Sinha and Shaukat Hussain, for the appellants (in both the  appeals) . J.  P. Goyal and G. Nabi Untoo, for the respondent (in  both the  appeals). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami,  J.  In the suit which is the subject  matter  of these  appeals the plaintiff alleged that one Dwarka  Prasad took  a  loan  of Rs. 1700 from Madho  Ram,  father  of  the defendants, and that on 27th July, 1922, Dwarka Prasad along with one Mst.  Kunta, his maternal grand mother, executed  a possessory mortgage deed of the disputed house for Rs.  1700 in favour of Madho Ram.  The terms of the mortgage deed were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

that  the mortgagor was to pay interest of Rs. 12/’12/-  per month  out of which the rent amounting to Rs. 6/- which  was the agreed usufruct of the house in suit was to be  adjusted and  the mortgagor was to pay Rs. 6/12/- per month  in  cash towards  the  balance of the interest.  The  parties  agreed that  the mortgage would be redeemable within  twenty  years after  paying  the  principal, amount and  that  portion  of interest which was not discharged-by the usufruct and  other amounts.  When Dwarka Prasad was unable to PAY the amount of Rs.  6/12/- per month, he delivered possession of the  house to Madho Ram who let out the house on a monthly 499 rent  of  Rs.  25.  The mortgagors Dwarka  Prasad  and  Mst. Kunta died leaving Mst.  Radha Bai as Dwarka Prasad’s  heir. Radha Bai sold the house in dispute to the plaintiff on  2nd February,  1953  and executed a sale deed.   The  plaintiff, therefore, became entitled to redeem the mortgage and  asked the defendants to render accounts.  The defendants contested the suit on the ground that Madho Ram was not the  mortgagor nor were the defendants mortgagees.  It was alleged that  in the  locality  where  the house was situated,  there  was  a custom  of paying Haqe-chaharum and to avoid  that  payment, the  original  deed dated 27th July, 1922  was  drafted  and executed in the form of a mortgage though it was actually an out-right sale.  According to the defendants, the house  was actually  sold  to  Madho Ram and was  not  mortgaged.   The defendants  also pleaded that if the deed dated  27th  July, 1922  was.  held  to  be a  mortgage,  the  mortgagees  were entitled to get the payment of Rs. 6442/8/- as interest, Rs. 2315 as costs of repairs etc. The trial court held that  the deed dated 27th July, 1922 was a Mortgage deed, that  Dwarka Prasad  did  not sell the house to Madho Ram  and  that  the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgage on payment  of Rs.  1709/14/-.   The trial,court  accordingly  decreed  the plaintiffs suit for redemption on payment of Rs.  1709/14/-. Against  the  judgment  of the trial  court  the  defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Varanasi, who allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.   The plaintiff took the matter in second appeal to the High Court which  framed  an issue and remanded the case  back  to  the lower  appellate  court  for a fresh  decision.   The  issue framed  by the High Court was "’Have the  defendants  become the owners of the property in dispute by adverse  possession ?"  The  High Court directed the lower appellate  court  to decide  the question of admissibility of Exts.  A-25 and  A- 26.   After remand the lower appellate court held  that  the deed  dated  27th July, 1922 was a mortgage deed and  not  a sale-deed, and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to re- deem  the mortgage.  The lower appellate court further  held that  the  defendants  had failed to  prove  that  they  had acquired  title by adverse possession.  The lower  appellate court made the following order               "  The  appeal is allowed with half  costs  in               this  way  that the suit is  decreed  for  the               redemption of the mortgage in question if  the               plaintiff  pays within six months Rs. 1700  as               principal, Rs. 9.87 N.P. Prajawat paid  before               this suit and any Prajawat paid by the  defen-               dants  during the pendency of this  suit  till               the  plaintiff  deposits the  entire  sum  due               under this decree and the interest at the rate               of  Rs. 6/12/- per month from  27-7-1922  till               the plaintiff deposits the entire sum due               500                under  this decree.  The costs of  the  trial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             court  are  made easy.   Let  the  preliminary               decree under Order 34, R.7, C.P.C. be modified               accordingly". Against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court both  the plaintiff and the defendants filed appeals  before the’  High Court.  The plaintiff prayed that the  decree  of the lower appellate court should be set aside and the decree of  the trial court should be restored.’ The defendants,  on the  other hand, prayed that the decree of the lower  courts should  be  set  aside and the  plaintiffs  suit  should  be dismissed  with costs.  By its  judgment dated  27th  April, 1964 the High Court dismissed the second appeal preferred by the  defendants  but allowed the plaintiffs appeal  and  set aside  that  judgment  of  the  lower  appellate  court  and restored  the Judgment of the trial Court.  The  High  Court further remanded that case of lower appellate court with the direction  that "the defendants be asked to render  accounts before they claim any payment from the plaintiff at the time of  redemption  of the mortgage".  The present  appeals  are brought  by  special  leave  against  the  judgment  of  the Allahabad  High  Court  dated 27th  April,  1964  in  second Appeals Nos. 4940 and 3660 of 1961. In  support of these appeals it was contended by  Mr.  Sinha that  the deed Ex. 4 dated, 27th July, 1922 was a sale  deed and not a mortgage deed.  It was pointed out that there  was a subsequent deed of sale dated 8th October, 1922 Ex.   A-26 which  is named ’Titimma Bainama’.  The contention was  that the  document Ex. 4 dated 27th July, 1922 must be  construed along  with  Ex.  A.  26  which  forms  part  of  the   same transaction  and  so  construed the transaction  was  not  a usufructary  mortgage  but was an outright  sale.   We  are unable  to accept the argument put forward on behalf of  the appel lant.   Ex.   A.26 dated 8th October, 1922  is  not  a registered document, and is hence not admissible in evidence to  prove  the  nature of the  transaction  covered  by  the registered  mortgage deed Ex. 4 dated 27th July,  1922.   If Ex.  4  is  taken  by itself, there is  no  doubt  that  the transaction is one of mortgage.  The document Ex. 4  recites that  in  consideration  of money advanced  the  executants "mortgage  the said house ’Bhog Bhandak’ bearing  No.  64/71 situate Mohalla Gola Dina Nath." Clause 2 provides a  period of twenty years for redemption of the mortgage.  Clause 6 of the  document stipulates that the cost of repairs,  will  be borne by the mortgagors.  Clause I states               "That the said sum of Rupees Seventeen hundred               half  of  which is Rupees  Eight  hundred  and               fifty  will  carry  interest at  the  rate  of               twelve  annas  per cent monthly.  The  sum  of               Rupees  six  will  be  deducted  towards  rent               monthly  from the interest which will  accrue.               ’The   possession  of  the  house   has   been               delivered to the               501               said  mortgage  Mahajan (money  lender).   The               mortgagors will pay the balance of Rupees  six               annas  twelve  month  by  month  to  the  said               mortgagee  after deducting the rent of  Rupees               six  after giving the possession of  the  said               house and shop".               Clause 4 provides:               "That  we will go on paying the  said  Mahajan               the sum of Rupees six twelve annas the balance               of the interest monthly.  If the whole or part               of the interest remains unpaid we will pay  at               the  time  of redemption. if  this  amount  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             interest is not paid the said house shall  not               be redeemed". The  reading of these terms clearly shows that Ex. 4  was  a mortgage  deed  and not a sale deed.  It  was  contended  on behalf of the appellants that in order to avoid the  payment of  Haqe-chaharum, the original deed dated 27th  July,  1922 was  drafted and executed in the form of a mortgage  but  it was  actually meant to be an outright sale.  In  support  of this  argument  reference  was made to Ex.  A.26  dated  8th October  1922.   As  we  have already  said  Ex.   A.26  was required  to be registered under section 54 of the  Transfer of  Property Act.  In the absence of such registration  this document  cannot be received in evidence of any  transaction affecting the property in view of s. 49 of the  Registration Act.   It  was, however, urged on behalf of  the  appellants that the effect of section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act was  not  to  make  section  49  of  the  Registration   Act applicable  to documents which are compulsorily  registrable by the provisions of  s. 54, paragraph 2 of the Transfer of Property  Act.  In support of this contention  reliance  was placed  on the decision of the full bench of  the  Allahabad High Court in Sohan Lal & Ors. v. Mohan Lal & Ors. (1) Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act states               "The  chapters and sections of this Act  which               relate to contracts shall be taken as part  of               the Indian Registration Act, 1872.               And  sections 54, paragraphs 2 and 3, 59,  107               and  123 shall be read as supplemental to  the               Indian Registration Act, 1908".               Section  54  of the Transfer of  Property  Act               reads               "  "Sale"  is  a  transfer  of  ownership   in               exchange for a price paid or promised or part-               paid and part-promised. (1)I.L.R. 50 All. 986. 502               such   transfer,  in  the  case  of   tangible               immovable  of the value of one hundred  rupees               and upwards, or in the case of a reversion  or               other intangible thing, can be made only by  a               registered instrument.               In the case of tangible immovable property, of               a   value  less  than  one   hundred   rupees,               such_transfer   may  be  made  either   by   a               registered  instrument or by delivery  of  the               property".               Section 17 of the Registration Act states:               "17.  (1) The following documents  shall  be               registered  if  the  property  to  which  they               relate  is  situate in a  district  in  which,               and,if they have been executed on or after the               date  on  which, Act No. XVI of  1864  or  the               Indian  Registration Act, 1866 or  the  Indian               Registration   Act,   1871,  or   the   Indian               Registration  Act, 1877, or this Act  came  or               comes into force, namely:               (a)   instrument   of   gift   of   immoveable               property;               (b)   other   non-testainentary    instruments               which  purport or operate to create,  declare,               assign,   limit  or  extinguish,  whether   in               present  or  in future, any  right,  title  or               interest, whether vested or contingent, of the               value a one hundred rupees and upwards, to  or               in immoveable property;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             (c)non-testamentary    instruments    which               acknowledge  the  receipt or  payment  of  any               consideration on accountof   the   creation,               declaration, assignment, limitation orextinction               of any such right, title or interest; and               (d)   leases of immoveable property from  year               to  year, or for any term exceeding one  year,               or reserving a yearly rent;.               (e)   non-testamentary             instruments               transferring or assigning any decree or  order               of  a Court or any award when such  decree  or               order or award purports or operates to create,               declare,  assign, limit or extinguish  whether               in  present or in future, any right, title  or               interest, whether vested or contingent of  the               value  of one hundred rupees and upwards-,  to               or in immoveable property".               Section  49 of the Registration Act  prior  to               its amendment in 1929 read :                "No  document  required by section 17  to  be               registered shall-               503               (a)affect any immoveable Property comprised               therein, or               (b)   confer any power to adopt, or               (c)be   received   as   evidence   of   any               transaction   affecting   such   Property   or               conferring  such  power, unless  it  has  been               registered".               By  section  10 of the Transfer.  of  Property               (Amendment)  Supplementary Act, 1929,  section               49 was amended as follows.-               "No document required by section 17 or by  any               provision  of  the Transfer of  Property  Act,               1882 to be registered shall-               (a)affect any immoveable property comprised               therein, or               (b)   confer Any power to adopt, or               (c)   be   received   as   evidence   of   any               transaction   affecting   such   property   or               conferring  such  power  unless  it  has  been               registered.               Provided   that   an   unregistered   document               affecting immoveable property and required  by               this  Act  or the Transfer  of  Property  Act,               1882,  to  be registered may  be  received  as               evidence of a contract in a suit for  specific               performance  under Chapter 11 of the  Specific               Relief  Act,  1877,  or as  evidence  of  part               performance of a contract for the purposes  of               section  53A of the Transfer of Property  Act,               1882,   or  as  evidence  of  any   collateral               transaction not required to be affected by re-               gistered instrument". The  inclusion  of  the  words "by  any provision  of  the Transfer  of Property Act, 1882" by the Amending  Act,  1929 settled the doubt entertained as to whether the documents of which the registration was compulsory under the Transfer  of Property  Act, but not under section 17 of the  Registration Act  were  affected by section 49 of the  Registration  Act. Section  4  of  the Transfer of  Property  Act  enacts  that "sections  54, paragraphs, 2 and 3, 59 107 and 123 shall  be read as supplemental to the Indian Registration Act,  1908". It  was previously supposed that the effect of this  section was  merely  to add to the list ’of documents of  which  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

registration  was  compulsory and not to  include  them  in section  17 so as to bring them within the scope of  section 49.   This  was  the view taken by the  Full  Bench  of  the Allahabad High Court in Sohan Lal’s case(1).  The same  view was  expressed in a Madras Case Rama Sahu v. Gowro  Ratho(2) and by MacLeod C.J. in a Bombay case Dawal v. Dharma(3).  We are however absolved (1) I.L.R. 50  All. 986.   (2) I.L.R. [1921] 44 mad. 55. (3)  I.L.R. [1918] 41 Bom. 550. 504 in the present case, from examining the correctness of these decisions.   For  these decisions have  been  superseded  by subsequent  legislation i.e. by the enactment of Act 21  of 1922  which by inserting in section 49 of  the  Registration Act  the  words  "or by any provision  of  the  Transfer  of Property Act, 1882" has made it clear that the documents  in the   supplemental   list  i.e.  the  documents   of   which registration is necessary under the Transfer of Property Act but not under the Registration Act fall within the scope  of section  49 of the Registration Act and if not  registered are not admissible as evidence of any transaction  affecting any immoveable property comprised therein, and do not affect any  such  inmmovable property.  We are accordingly  of  the opinion that Ex.  A-26 being unregistered is not admissible in  evidence.  In ,our opinion, Mr. Sinha is unable to  make good his argument on this aspect of the case. Mr. Sinha contended that in any event the High Court  should not have remanded the case to the lower appellate court with a  direction that the defendants should be asked  to  render accounts  ,before they claim any payment from the  plaintiff at  the time of redemption of the mortgage.  It was  pointed out  that the plaintiff did not file an appeal  against  the decree  of  the trial court and in the absence  of  such  an appeal the High Court was not legally justified in  ,,giving further  relief to the plaintiff the an that granted by  the trial  court.   In our opinion, there is  justification  for this argument.  We accordingly set aside that portion of the decree  of  the High Court remanding the case to  the  lower appellate  court  with  a  direction that  the  defendants should,  be asked to render accounts. otherwise  we  ’affirm the decree of the High Court allowing the plaintiff’s appeal with costs and setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower  appellate court and restoring judgment and decree  of the trial court dated 31st October, 1956. Subject  to  this  modification we  dismiss  these  appeals. There Will be no order as to costs in this Court. G.C.                              Appeals dismissed. 505