M VEERESALINGAM Vs. PKONDAYYA

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, inasmuch as the mortgagor intentionally included therein for purposes of registration property which did not belong to him. THEre is no allegation that the mortgagee 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. Pada Venkata Jaganadha Raju Garu A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 281 following Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhury V/s. Haridasi Bibi A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 67, Biswanath Prasad V/s. Chandra Narayan chowdhury A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 8 and Pahlad Lal V/s. Laraiti (1918) 41 All. 22, that where no collusion by the mortgagee to assist a fraud by the mortgagor in respect of the registration of the document has bean made out, the registration is not invalid, at least so far as the interests of the mortgagee 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.