HARI Vs. PHOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff -Appellant secured a decree in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ -against the Defendant -Respondent on the basis of receipt Exhibit P. 1 dated 6th October, 1966. The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree on the ground that the receipt Exhibit P. 1 was a mortgage deed as it tended to amount to extinguishment of rights in land and thus required registration under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, was not admissible in evidence being unregistered mortgage deed.

(2.) The short question that falls for consideration is as to whether receipt Exhibit P. 1 requires registration. When translated into English it reads:

(3.) A bare perusal of this document would reveal that the document Exhibit P. 1 is a mere receipt as this document by itself neither created any interest in immovable property nor extinguished any interest. The document merely shows receipt of certain amount by the Defendant -Respondent from the Plaintiff -Appellant in connection with the mortgage of land having been effected by the Defendant -Respondent in favour of Plaintiff -Appellant prior to the execution of this receipt. At the relevant time the mortgage of the land in Haryana could be effected orally as Sec. 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, effecting mortgagee by registered deed was made applicable for the first time by notification No. S.O. 75/C.A. 4/1882/S. 1/67 dated 5th August, 1967.