AMAR SINGH Vs. SARWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the view taken by the learned District Judge, Patiala in his judgment and decree dated 3.9.1988 holding that the plaintiff-respondents along with defendant- respondent 6 were entitled to a declaration to the effect that they have become absolute owner of the suit land because the defendant-appellants being the mortgagor had failed to redeem the property mortgaged to them by mortgage-deed Ex. P1 in the year 1928. The view taken is that the mortgage- deed although is not registered, was not required to be registered in the year 1928 as the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Registration Act') was applicable to British India alone and it was not applicable to Pepsu. In that regard reliance has been placed on a judgment of Lahore High Court in the case of Maru Singh v. Mohru and others, AIR 1929 Lahore 495. The trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents by excluding from consideration the mortgage-deed Ex. P1 on the ground that it was required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. However, the learned lower Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the plaintiff-respondents on the basis of the argument that in the year 1928, the Registration Act was not made applicable to the Erstwhile State of Pepsu nor Section 59 of the Transfer or Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, 'Transfer of Property Act') was applicable to Punjab. The view of the learned lower Appellate Court in this regard reads as under :-

(2.) MR . G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the defendant-appellants in support of the appeal has admitted that although the Registration Act or Transfer of Property Act were not applicable but its general principles all the same continued to apply as these principles are based on sound public policy. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Ram Gopal Dula Singh v. Sardar Gurbux Singh Jiwan Singh and others, AIR 1955 Punjab 215 and has argued that in para 15 of the judgment, it has been categorically held with regard to the Transfer of Property Act, that the principles of the Transfer of Property Act would still be applicable to Punjab because they are based on justice, equity and good conscience, although the rules of procedure may not be applicable. According to the learned counsel, if this is the situation with regard to Transfer of Property Act, it would equally be the position with regard to Registration Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on two other judgments of Pepsu High Court in the cases of Hari Chand v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1952 Pepsu 56 and Mt. Parsini w/o Joginder Singh v. Wasan Singh Labh Singh and another, AIR 1951 Pepsu 109 and argued that in both these cases the unregistered deeds were not accepted in evidence by the Pepsu High Court itself. According to the learned counsel, the Registration Act has been made applicable to Pepsu according to the view taken in the aforementioned two judgments.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned lower Appellate Court does not call for interference which is to the effect that an unregistered document would be admissible because the provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act were not extended to the State of Pepsu. Learned lower Appellate Court has categorically observed that oral mortgage used to be prevalent prior to extending the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the Registration Act to Punjab. Section 1(2) of the Registration Act as well as Sections 1 and 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, as originally stood are reproduced hereunder for a facility of reference :- Registration Act