RAMANAMMA Vs. SUBRAHMANYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises on the following material facts. While disposing of an application for the appointment of a Receiver in I.A. No. 1385/79 in O.S. No. 42/74, the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, by his order dated 12-12-79 directed the revision petitioners to furnish third party immovable property security in an amount of Rs. 50,000/-, failing which receiver will be appointed. That order was questioned unsuccessfully in this Court in CRP No. 7801/79. The petitioners thereafter filed a draft security bond executed by one Sri Pathuri Srimannarayana. He filed the necessary documents of title including the encumbrance certificate. The Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, on being satisfied with the sufficiency of the security called for a fair bond and after recording the statement of the surety on 26-4-1980 called upon the petitioners to file the registered fair bond on 17-6-1980. It is this order calling the respondents to file the registered fair bond that is the subject matter of this revision.

(2.) Whatever may be the law prevailing in other High Courts, so far as this Court is concerned, Jeevan Reddy, J. in Purra Pentaiah vs. Madam Pandya held following an earlier decision of the Madras High Court in Nagaruru Sambaiah vs. Tangatur Subbayya that the security bond relating to immoveable property furnished in pursuance to an order of the Court requires registration Mr. Sarathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the decision in Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys vs. Orissa State Electricity .Board to submit that the opposite view so propounded in the Orissa High Court has taken note of the amendment made to section 17of the REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 and should therefore be followed. This submission depends upon the view which the High Courts took on the question whether the security bond directed to be furnished is itself an order of Court. The view taken by this Court following the Madras decision referred to above is that it does not constitute by itself an order of Court and therefore does not qualify for exemption from registration under section 17 of the Registration Act. The fair bond which is offered as security therefore requires registration.

(3.) The alternative submission made by Mr. Sarathi is that the Court directed security of immoveable property to be furnished and did not prescribe any mode by which the said security should be furnished. It is no doubt true that in accordance with the common practice a draft security bond was filed before the Court and it was accepted and fair security bond was called for and the fair security bond was also filed. The transfer of property act provides for such security to be executed not only by registering the document, but also by having an equally effective security by creating a mortgage by the deposit of title deeds. The amount for which security was required is Rs 50,000/-. The expense involved, in stamp and registration will come to roughly Rs. 7,500/- and that cost can be avoided if the parties are given the option, if they so choose, to create the security by depositing title deeds accompanied by the necessary memorandum drafted in such a manner as to avoid the need to incur the necessary stamp and registration expenses. Mr. Ramachandra Rao has submitted that to give such an opportunity to the parties will be to substantially interefere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court and that such interference should not be made by this Court exercising its powers of revision. It looks to me that these various orders passed by the trial Court in calling for the draft bond. a fair bond and a fair registered bond are routine orders passed without really exercising its discretion, keeping in view the cost involved in getting the document registered. I, therefore consider that this is a proper case where this Court should exercise its revisional powers so as to give an opportunity to the parties to offer, if possible, the same security which will be as effective as a registered document by requesting the Court to accept the security by way of deposit of title deeds accompanied by a memorandum drafted in such a manner as to avoid the need to pay to stamp and registration expenses. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajahmundry, to enable the petitioner to request the Court below to accept instead, the security bond by way of deposit of title deeds. The petitioner is given one month's time from the date, copy of this order is received in the trial Court to make such a request. The parties in the circumstances are directed to bear their respective costs. C.M.P. No. 7631/80 is dismissed as it is no longer necessary as the main revision petition is disposed of. Matter remitted back to Trial court. CMP dismissed as no longer ncessary.