RAMNANDAN PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH Vs. CHANDRADIP NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal from a decree of the learned Third Subordinate Judge of Gaya decreeing the plaintiffs claim in a mortgage suit. On 9 July 1921 the mortgage in suit was executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Deoki Singh, the deceased father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and grandfather of plaintiff 4. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 10,000 carrying interest at the rate of 13 annas 3 pies per cent, per mensem with annual rests. The claim was for Rs. 34,268-13-6. A mortgage decree was passed by the learned Subordinate Judge for Rs. 39,261- 0-11 with future interest at six per cent, per annum till realization. The properties mortgaged consisted of a 16 annas share in a village called Bara Keyam Earidpore and 16 annas share in village Daniala covered by touzi No. 287 and situate in the District of Gaya together with 5 kathas of land in village Mera within the Mahal Akbarpore Bhadwa covered by touzi No. 4593 and situate in the District of Patna.

(2.) The mortgage bond was registered in the District of Patna. The defendants took a number of pleas in their written statement but for the purposes of this appeal it is only necessary to refer to one of them. They pleaded inter alia that the mortgage bond could not be enforced by reason of the fact that it had not been validly registered. According to the defendants the only properties mortgaged effectually were the villages of Bara Keyam Earidpore and Daniala. Both these villages were situate in the Gaya District and therefore the Sub-Registrar at Patna had no jurisdiction to register the mortgage.

(3.) It was alleged by the defendants that the 5 kathas of land in village Mera situate in Patna District were never intended to form part of the mortgage security and that that parcel of land was only inserted in the mortgage deed as a device to defraud the registration laws. The learned Subordinate Judge found all the issues except the one as to registration in favour of the plaintiffs. He however accepted the defendants contention that the 5 kathas of land in village Mera in the Patna District were never intended to form part of the security and that the insertion of the same was a device to defeat the registration law.