VEERAPPA CHETTY ALIAS VELLIAN CHETTY Vs. KADIRESAN CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The important question of law argued in this second appeal is whether the hypothecation bond on which the plaintiff instituted the suit to recover the amount due thereon is invalid in law and inadmissible in evidence on the ground that its registration by the Sub-Registrar of Devakota was illegal. The document was executed by the first defendant to one Palaniappa Chetti. The plaintiff is the assignee of the bond from Palaniappa Chetti, and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the step brothers of the 1st defendant and members of an undivided Hindu family, of which K the 1st defendant is the manager. The mortgaged property is situated in the village of Alagapuri. The defendants contention is that Alagapuri is a hamlet of Kallangudi attached to the Tirupattur Registration Office. It is clear, however, that it was sometimes regarded by the people of the place as a hamlet of Kandanur attached to the Devakota Registration District. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit observes that documents relating to Alagapuri were sometimes registered at the Tirupattur Office [Exhibit III series] and at other times at the Devakota Office. He examined the documents containing the history of both the offices, Exhibit I A and Fl. The latter document shows Alagapuri as a village attached to Kandanur, though the correctness of the statement is said to have been held in doubt. Exhibit I A on the other hand shows Alagapuri as attached to Kallangudi. There is apparently nothing more on the record to show whether Alagapuri is in reality a village attached to Kallangudi or to Kandanur. The Subordinate Judge observes that the parties resident in and about the locality have been sometimes treating Alagapuri as attached to Kallangudi and sometimes as attached to Kandanur. His finding is that the village is in reality attached to Kallangudi. The District Judge on appeal recorded no finding on the question, although it was raised iti the memoradum of appeal by the plaintiff, apparently because the Judge considered it unnecessary to do so, as he was of opinion that the registration of the document could not be impeached as invalid even if the village was really attached to Kallangudi. On the evidence on record we do not think that defendants on whom the onus lies have succeeded in establishing affirmatively that Alagapuri is not attached to Kandanur, The arguments before us however have proceeded on the assumption that the Subordinate Judge s finding was correct, and we consider it desirable to deal with the question whether the registration of the document is invalid on that finding.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge decided the question in the affirmative, and the District Judge in the negative. Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar the learned vakil for the respondent contends, first, that the registration of a document in the wrong Sub-Registry office does not render the registration invalid; and secondly that, as it was the 1st defendant who presented the document for registration, it is not open to him and to the 2nd and 3rd defendants, who are bound by his act to set up the invalidity of the registration on that ground. Mr. T. R. Ramachandra Aiyar, the learned vakil for the appellant, contends, on the other hand, that the Sub-Registrar of Devakota has no jurisdiction to register a document relating to property not situated within the limits of the Sab-Registrar s office and the registration was therefore void. The question has not formed the subject of decision either in this Court or in the Bombay High Court. Conflicting views have been held both in the Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts. The point is one of great importance and requires careful consideration.

(3.) It will be desirable in the first instance to refer to the sections of the Registration Act XVI of 11908 bearing on the question. Section 49 enacts that "no document required by Section 17 to be registered" [and a mortgage of Rs. 100 and upwards is such a document] "shall (a). affect any immoveable property comprised therein or.... (c). be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property unless it has been registered