V VEMULAMMA Vs. P SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision the question about compulsory registration of a receipt executed by a mortgagee evidencing payment of mortgage money in full is to be decided. The trial court has followed a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Hazura Singh vs. Jaggar Singh and held that the document is inadmissible in evidence. There is a conflict of opinion among the various High Courts and there are two bench decisions of the Madras High Court which have taken conflicting views. One is reported in Gopalas Ami Iyer vs. Kalyana Rangappa where the Bench has taken a more liberal view and held that receipt simpliciter is admissible in evidence. In the other case reported in Koti Bhama Lingappa vs. Nilakantappayya the Bench has taken the view that receipt of mortgage money executed by the mortgagee is inadmissible. But unfortunately the earlier case was not considered by it. There are several subsequent single judge decisions of the Madras High Court. But in view of the conflict of decisions among the two benches, both of which are prior to 1954, it is appropriate that the matter is referred to a Division Bench. The papers may be placed before the Hon'bla the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. In pursuance of the said order of the High Court dated 3-11-1983 this petition coming on for hearing before the Division Bench the court delivered the following :

(2.) The short question for consideration is whether a receipt passed by the mortgagee in favour of the mortgagor for payment of Rs. 850/- towards full discharge of the mortgage debt is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. The receipt is as follows :--

(3.) Relying on the words "towards full satisfaction of the amount of Rs. 800/- due under the mortgage executed" it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the document is inadmissible in evidence as it extinguishes the mortgage and the same requires registration.