PARSOTAM DAS Vs. PATESRI PARTAB NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for sale upon a mortgage, and the only question we have to determine is whether the court below was right in dismissing the claim in so far as it sought to bring to sale the village Rasulpur, tappa Kadar. The court below has held that having regard to the provisions of Section 21 of the Registration Act of 1877 the registration of the mortgage deed as regards that village was void and it has accordingly dismissed the claim in respect of that village. The correctness of this decision is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiffs.

(2.) The mortgage comprises a number of villages, among which is the village Rasulpur, and it is thus described in the deed. "The entire mauza Rasulpur, tappa Padya,... pargana and district Basti... which are mortgaged with possession to other persons". Mauza Rasulpur is not in tappa Padya, but is in fact in tappa Kadar. This is established by the evidence to which the court below has referred, but it is admitted that it is situate in pargana Basti and in the Basti district, and it was also mortgaged with possession to other persons. The court below holds that as the tappa in which the property in question is situate has been wrongly given in the mortgage deed, the registration of that document is thereby vitiated. Section 21 of the Registration Act merely provides that a non-testamentary document relating to immovable property should contain a description o such property sufficient to identify the same, and the appendix to the Registration Manual requires that the name of the village, pargana and district should be entered. In the present instance the name of the village and the names of the pargana and the district in which it is situate are given in the mortgage deed. The only defect is the mistake in the name of the tappa. The fact that it is further mentioned in the mortgage deed that the mortgaged property is subject to a prior mortgage under which the mortgagee is in possession is another circumstance which would enable one to identify the property intended to be mortgaged and mentioned in the mortgage deed. We are unable to hold that the mistake in the tappa is alone sufficient to vitiate the registration of the document which was accepted for registration and actually registered. The description given, in spite of the error in the tappa, was in our opinion sufficient to identify the property and that part of the description which was in fact erroneous may well be disregarded.

(3.) A similar question arose in Beni Madho Singh v. Jagat singh (1912) 10 A.L.J., 33 and it was held that a sale deed having been registered, the registration could not be a nullity merely by reason of there being an error in the description of the property. The court below was, therefore, in our opinion wrong in dismissing the claim as regards the village Rasulpur.