MAMILLAPALLI VEERESALINGHAM Vs. PONNUKOLLU KONDAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised before me is whether the mortgage is void on the ground that its registration was effected by a fraud on the registering officer, in as much as the mortgagor intentionally included therein for purposes of registration property which did not belong to him. THEre is no allegation that the mortgage was aware of the fraud and shared in it. In these circumstances I must accept the ruling of a Bench of this Court in Venkata Lakshmikantaraju Garu V/s. Pada Venkata Jagannadha Baju Garu 77 Ind. Cas. 464 : 46 M.L.J. 12 : (1924) M.W.N. 125 : 33 M.L.T. 248 : (1924) A.I.R. (M.) 281 following Harendra Lal Boy Ghowdury V/s. Baridasi Bibi 23 Ind. Cas. 637 : 41 C. 972 : 27 M.L.J. 80 : (1914) M.W.N. 462 : 16 M.L.T. 6 : 18 C.W.N. 817 : 19 C.L.J. 484 : 16 Bom. L.R. 400 : 12 A.L.J. 774 L 1 L.W. 1050 : 41 I.A. 110 (P.C.) Biswanath Prasad V/s. Chandra Narayan Ghowdhury 63 Ind. Cas. 770 : 48 C. 509 : 48 I.A. 127 (P.C.), and Pahlad Lal V/s. Laraiti 48 Ind. Cas. 200 : 41 A. 22 : 16 A.L.J. 871, that where no collusion by the mortgage to assist a fraud by the mortgagor in respect of the registration of the document has been made out, the registration is not invalid, at least so far as the interests of the mortgage are concerned. THE decree of the lower Appellate Court is, therefore, right and this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. Time for payment is extended up to 16 April 1924.