GOVIND RAM Vs. MADAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for decision on this appeal from the High Court at Allahabad is short, but not free from difficulty. THE relevant facts which gave rise to it must first be stated.

(2.) ONE Seth Kashi Nath obtained a decree (in a Suit No. 42 of 1930) against the present respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 6, and one Lala Sagarmal. Lala Sagarmal is dead, and his sons, the present respondents Nos. 4 and 5, were substituted for him on the record in the present suit. Respondent No. 6 has been declared insolvent and the Official Receiver, Algiers, has also been brought on the record in the present suit. For convenience the original defendants to suit No. 42 of 1930 or those representing their interests from time to time will all be included in the words the debtors.

(3.) THE point at issue can now be statedit is whether by reason of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the deed of May 25, 1929 (hereinafter called the said deed), was exempt from any requirement to be registered, notwithstanding that Section 5 of the Trusts Act, 1882, enacts that no trust in relation to immovable property is valid unless registered.