R RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR Vs. RANGANATHA AYYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of Madhavan Nair, J. in second appeal. The facts out of which this appeal arises are stated by him in his judgment and it is, therefore, unnecessary to restate them now. The question is whether Madhavan Nair, J., was right in holding that Ex. B-1, which is an assignment of the rights under Ex. B, was a document which required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In my opinion, he was right in so holding. It is quite true that Ex. B does not, in terms, state that a charge has been created. The question is whether what it does state is sufficient in itself to create the charge in question, namely, the vendor's lien. It is quite true that without such a document one of the incidents of a transfer of property is to pass with it to the transferee all such rights as the transferor possesses. This of course refers to an assignment of these rights. What was it that the vendor in this case had? His rights are set out in Section 55 (4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act and he has the charge therein specified. In my opinion, Ex. B sets out facts which at once gave to the vendor his charge. And it seems to follow from this that any document which purports to transfer what the vendor has to a transferee must itself be registered under Section 17(1) (6) of the Registration Act. This would be a difficult point for decision but for the fact that we derive considerable assistance from the Privy Council decision in Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh 98 Ind. Cas. 508 : 51. MLJ 788 at p. 792 : AIR 1926 PC 94 : 24 ALJ 807 : (1926) MWN 602 : 3 OWN 634 : 24 LW 396 : 44 CLJ 97 : 7 PLT 661 : 28 Bom LR 1372 : 31 CWN 125 : 53 IA 214 : 28 PLR 10 (PC). That was a case arising under another sub-section of the same section, namely, Section 55(6)(b). The facts there were that there was a document which was not registered but which purported to be an agreement for the sale and purchase of land for Rs 10,000. The purchaser had paid Rs. 1,000 as earnest money and completion was to take place within forty days. The vendor eventually, notwithstanding the purchaser's constant requests, refused to complete and, being sued for specific performance, pleaded that the document, not having been registered under Section 49 of the Registration Act, was inadmissible in evidence. It was held by the Privy Council that the agreement in question which gave to the buyer the rights which accrued to him under Section 55(6)(b) was one which created an "interest in property", within the meaning of Section 17(2)(v) or rather it was not within the exception of Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration Act and that it was, therefore, within Section 17(1)(6) of the Registration Act and required registration. This is a direct decision at any rate that the charge which is given to a buyer under Section 55(6)(6) of the Transfer of property Act is one which, when it is created by an intstrument, requires that instrument to be registered. Therefore, when once it is apparent that Ex. B does create the charge which is given) to the seller in Section 55(4)(6) of the Transfer of Property Act, then it appears to me that that document requires registration and that any other document which assigns the rights under that document also requires registration.

(2.) In the present case even if the sale deed itself created the charge, it was a registered document and in my opinion any assignment of that charge also requires registration.

(3.) For these reasons, I am of opinion that the judgment of our learned brother in second appeal was correct. This Letters Patent Appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Bardswell, J.