ASANISA ROWTHER Vs. RAMAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff - original decree holder - and the assignee decree holder in O.S. No. 134 of 1112 on the file of the court of the Munsiff, Changanacherry are the appellants in the second appeal and the defendant judgment debtor the respondent. The appellants filed E. P. No. 625 of 1955 for recognition of the assignment of the decree by the 1st appellant in favour of the 2nd appellant and for executing the same. Objections were raised by the respondent judgment debtor, the main objections being (1) that since the assignment of the decree was not registered under the provisions of S.17(1)(e) of the Indian Registration Act, the decree could not be executed by the assignee; (2) that the decree was satisfied by payment to the original decree holder and therefore, nothing remained for payment; (3) that the decree was barred by limitation and (4) that the price of paddy claimed in the Execution Petition was excessive. These objections were overruled by the 1st court and the execution allowed to proceed. The judgment debtor respondent took up the matter in appeal before the lower appellate court and the said court reversed the findings of the 1st court on the first two grounds and confirmed the findings of the other two. The decree holder has come up in second appeal.

(2.) S.17(1)(e) of the Indian Registration Act makes it obligatory that a non testamentary instrument transferring any decree when such decree purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property shall be registered. The question for consideration is whether the decree sought to be executed in this case is one which comes within the scope of the aforesaid section of the Indian Registration Act. The decree was for recovery of possession with arrears of rent on the basis of a lease deed. It is admitted that recovery of possession of the property had already been taken and the decree now sought to be executed is only the decree for arrears of rent. Be it also noted that no charge was created under the decree on any immovable property. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the decree purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest to or in any immovable property. Consequently it follows that the decree does not come within the scope of S.17(1)(e) of the Indian Registration Act and therefore the transfer of this decree does not require registration.

(3.) The learned District Judge has referred to three decisions, but on perusal of those decisions I find that they have no application to the case in hand. Mr. Ramanatha Pillai, the learned advocate of the appellants, invites my attention to another decision of the Madras High Court in Krishnayya v. Sriramulu ( AIR 1928 Mad. 142 ), wherein a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the assignment of a personal decree against one defendant did not require registration, though in the same decree there was also a mortgage decree against another defendant. Similarly, in the case before me the assignment of a personal decree does not require registration, though the same decree granted another relief by way of recovery of possession of immovable properties, which relief had already been satisfied and the decree regarding that is no more alive.