JOSEPH Vs. MICHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the revision petitioner. The dispute in the case is as to whether a memorandum of deposit of title deeds relied on by the plaintiff was compulsorily registrable. Objections raised by the defendant regarding inadmissibility of the memorandum and the invalidity of the mortgage were overruled.

(2.) Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the decision in Hubert Peyoli v. Santhavilasath Kesavan Sivadasan, (1998) 2 Ker LT 125 : (AIR 1998 Ker 344) in support of the contention that if the original transaction and the deposit are on the same date, the memorandum will require registration and that the impugned order is hence defective.

(3.) Section 17 of the Registration Act gives a list of documents which are compulsorily registrable. Non-testamentary 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 of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property come under Section 17(b) of the Act and they require registration. But, does a memorandum of deposit of title deeds create or declare any right or title over immovable property, attracting the sweep of the said section?