NADING NEELAKANDA RAO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner before us is the landlord of Survey Nos. 148 and 151 of Kuppagadde village, Sorab Taluk in the district of Shimoga. The Mysore Tenancy Act was introduced in that Taluk for the first time on 1-1-1954. It is not disputed that prior to the date hereinafter mentioned the Respondent was the tenant of the Petitioner in respect of the said lands. The Petitioner's in respect of the said lands. The Petitioner's case is that on 5-12-1953 the Respondent, by executing a surrender deed, surrendered the lands to the Petitioner. His case also is that on that date of Respondent delivered possession of the said lands to the Petitioner. After the Tenancy Act came to be in force in the Taluk in question, the tenant made an application on 20-4-1954 under Section 28-A of the Tenancy Act to the Tahsildar. In the said application the tenant alleged that the landlord had interfered with his possession. The Tahsildar dismissed the application on the ground that the tenant had already surrendered his tenancy and delivered possession of the said lands to the landlord. The Tahsildar have been practised upon him by the landlord in procuring the said deed of surrender cannot be gone into by the Tenancy Court. Against the said decision of the Tahsildar the tenant filed an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner also dismissed the appeal, he having held that possession had already been delivered to the landlord by virtue of the surrender deed. A second appeal was thereafter filed to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the said appeal and ordered restoration of possession to the tenant. Against that order of the Deputy Commissioner a revision petition was filed to the Board of Revenue. The Board on 15-11-57 dismissed the said revision petition. Thereafter the petitioner on 14-12-57 filed a revision petition to the Government of Mysore. But the said application was refused by the Government on the ground that the Government had no longer any power to interfere with the order of the Board of Revenue. It is under these circumstances that the present petition has been filed to this Court.

(2.) The learned Advocate for Petitioner, in the first place, urged before us that the Deputy Commissioner was wrong in holding that the surrender deed was inadmissible in evidence on the ground that the same was not registered. He urged that a surrender deed executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord need not registered. He urged that a surrender deed executed by the tenant in favour of the landlord need not be registered whatever may be the value of the tenancy so surrendered. In support of the contention he relied on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Abdul Majid v. Haricharan Halder, 53 Ind Cas 17 : (AIR 1919 Cal 840 (1)). He also relied on a decision of the Patna High Court reported in Singheshwarjha v. Ajab Lal AIR 1941 Pat 142 and on a decision of the Privy Council reported in Imambandi Begum v. Kamleshwari Pershad ILR 14 Cal. 109 (PC). In my opinion this contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner cannot be accepted as sound.

(3.) I am of the opinion that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner, viz.. that the dead of surrender which was not registered and the value of the subject-matter of which exceeds Rs.100/- was not admissible in evidence, is correct. Sec 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act provides that non-testamentary instruments other than instruments of gift of immovable property 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 of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property shall be registered. In this case, as I have mentioned, there is no dispute that the value of the tenancy in question that the value of the tenancy in question was over Rs. 100/-. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the said document does not come within the purview of cl.(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17. As I have said before, I am unable to accept that contention. It is clearly an instrument which purports to extinguish the right of the tenant, the value of which is over Rs. 100/-, and as such comes within Cl.(b) of Sec 17(1). The Deputy Commissioner was in my opinion, right in his view that the plain words of Section 17(1)(b) make this document compulsorily registrable.