TILAKDHARI LAL Vs. KHEDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question raised upon this appeal is a pure question of law, and depends upon the true construction to be placed on certain Indian statutes. In the earlier stages of the dispute this question was associated with the history of a series of transactions to which detailed reference is now unnecessary, since the chief point that arises for determination is whether the effect of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is to provide that the registration of a deed shall by the mere fact of registration become, in the words of Lord Camden: Morecock v. Dickens (1768) Amb. 678, 680, "presumptive notice-to all mankind." Opinion in India has differed upon the point. Certain decisions in the High Court of Bombay appear to be based upon the view that it is, while in Calcutta the decisions have been, so uniformly in the opposite direction that in the present case counsel for the appellants, who contend in favour of the doctrine that registration is notice, found himself unable in the High Court to breast the tide of authority, while reserving the right to renew the struggle if the case should further proceed.

(2.) ALTHOUGH this point is the chief one that now needs determination, eighteen issues were framed by the Subordinate Judge. These were all carefully examined and dealt with in his judgment, which was in favour of the respondents, and was affirmed by the High Court at Fort William, in Bengal. These issues are either now finally disposed of or they are subordinate to the question of notice. It is unnecessary, therefore, minutely to examine the history of this case or to analyze the transactions out of which the dispute proceeded, or the form of the two suits which are now consolidated in this appeal. It is sufficient to say that the controversy arises between two sets of mortgagees claiming through six mortgages granted by the same mortgagor. The holders of the first and second mortgages are the contesting respondents, the third and fourth were in favour of the appellants, and the fifth and sixth were again in favour of the respondents.

(3.) IF the respondents can be held to have had notice of the third and fourth mortgages, the case will have to be remitted for adjustment of the accounts; but if, as found both by the Additional Subordinate Judge and by the High Court, such notice cannot be imputed, upon this point the judgment appealed from will stand.