LAL CHAND Vs. KASTURI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary to give the facts in the present case as the only question involved is if the receipt, Exhibit P. 1, executed by Lal Chand Defendant is admissible in evidence or not. Suffice it to say that Kasturi Lal Plaintiff (now Respondent) had filed a suit against the present Appellant Lal Chand for possession of the suit land on the ground that he had redeemed the mortgage by paying the mortgage money amounting to Rs. 872/ - to the said Defendant. The other Defendants, who are now Respondent Nos. 2 to 6, were made proforma Defendants. Lal Chand Defendant had denied the receipt of the money and about the redemption of the land. During evidence the Plaintiff produced receipt Exhibit P. 1 about the payment of Rs. 872/ - to Lal Chand Defendant in connection with the said mortgage. The learned trial court held that the receipt required compulsory registration and as it was not registered, it was not admissible in evidence. Consequently, the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, he filed an appeal which was heard by learned Senior Subordinate Judge (with Enhanced Appellate Powers), Ambala. He held that the receipt was admissible in evidence even though not registered. Consequently, he accepted the appeal granted a decree for possession of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff. Now Lal Chand Defendant has come to this Court in Second Appeal.

(2.) Before I proceed further it becomes necessary to reproduce here the relevant provisions of the Registration Act.

(3.) I may also take notice here of the contents of the receipt Exhibit P. 1 which has been proved to have been executed by Lal Chand Defendant. It is Urdu. When translated into English its relevant portion somewhat reads as follows: -