HAKIM GHULAM MOHAMMED Vs. ZAHOOR MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the Additional munsif No. 1, Jaipur City holding that the agreement dated 12-12-49 is compulsorily registrable. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record. I am satisfied that the decision of the trial Court on the question of valuation is correct. The agreement relates to two passages one running north and south and the other running east and west. The passages running to the north and the south and to the east and west leading to a latrine formerly belonged exclusively to the plaintiff. Under the agreement the northern portion of the passage was given to the defendant and the southern to the plaintiff and the roof of the southern passage was made joint. The valuation of the portion of the property the ownership of which was transferred under this agreement is more than Rs. 100. The defendant examined Shri Bhanwarlal, as an expert and he valued the passage running north and south at Rs. 91. This valuation did not include the value of the passage running towards east and west. Nor did it include the value of the roof. The most important omission was the value of the space. There can thus be no doubt that under this agreement interest in immovable property worth Rs. 100 was transferred. This is compulsorily registrable.

(2.) THE next contention is that the agreement can be used for collateral purposes. This contention was not raised before the trial Court. Nor was it raised in the grounds of revision and cannot be raised here. Lastly, it is contended that unless the value of the property is shown in the document it cannot be held to be compulsorily registrable. Reliance was placed on nana Bin Lakshman v. Anant Babaji, (1877-78] ILR 2 Bom 353, in which it was observed at page 355-

(3.) IN the Registration Act No. 16 of 1864 there was a provision that for the purposes of registration the value of the interest created in immovable property by a deed should be ascertained with regard to the stamp law. This provision was taken away by the Legislature when Act No. 16 of 1864 was repealed. There is no similar provision contained in the present Registration Act. It has no doubt been held under the Stamp Act that if the value of the property is not shown in a sale deed the registering authority or the Court has no authority to hold an inquiry into its true market value -- see In re Md. Muzaffar Ali, AIR 1922 An 82 (2) (FB), Miran baksh v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Lah 69 (SB), Board of Revenue v. Venkatarama ayyar, AIR 1950 Mad 738 (FB) and Raja Ishwari Singh v. Raja Hari Singh, 1960 raj LW 419.