(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage. The Court below has dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the ground that the document was not duly registered according to the provisions of the Registration Act. None of the immoveable property which purports to be mortgaged was situate within the sub- district where the document was in fact registered. It will be seen that when the document was presented for registration, it was returned by the Sub-Registrar upon the very ground that none of the property was situate within the sub-district and that he had no jurisdiction to register it. The parties then added to the mortgage security a couple of sal trees alleged to be growing on the property within the sub-district. It has been found by the Court below that these trees never existed, and that the mortgagor had no property in the place where they were supposed to grow.
(2.) The question we have to decide is whether under these circumstances the Court below was right in holding that the document was not duly registered and could not be admitted in evidence. Section 28 of the Registration Act is as follows : Save as in this part otherwise provided", every document mentioned in Section 17, Sub-section (1), Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d), and Section 18, Clauses (a), (b) and (c), shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate.
(3.) It seems to us that on the facts as found no portion of the mortgaged property lay within the sub-district of the office of the Sub-Registrar who registered the document. It is, therefore, clear that the Court below was correct unless the omission to comply with the provisions of Section 28 can be regarded merely as a matter of procedure. There are obviously many reasons why a document should be registered in the right office and it is conceivable that fraud might easily be perpetrated by the omission to comply with the provisions of Section 28.