BISAL SINGH Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. Two persons Someshwar and Drigbijai executed the mortgage on which the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was brought. The deed was executed on the 4 of June 1907. Someshwar is dead and the mortgagee. Kandhai Lal, is also dead. Kandhai Lal's sons sued Someshwar's sons and Drigbijai for recovery of money on foot of the bond. The defences taken, inter alia, were that the deed had not been properly attested and that it was not properly registered. The lower Appellate Court found that the deed had been properly attested and as to the registration it found that the properties mortgaged included a house in village Ghauspur Khathola, Pargana Chail, which never in fact existed. It is common ground that it was owing to the inclusion of this house in the mortgage-deed that the Sub-Registrar of Chail alis Allahabad had the jurisdiction to register it. The learned District Judge also found, or purported to find, that the mortgagee was no party to the fraud committed on the Law of Registration and that it was the mortgagors who were solely to blame in the matter.

(2.) In this Court it has been urged that the deed was not properly attested, that the property which was found to be fictitious was never intended to be security for the money and, that it must be inferred, therefore, that it was included simply for the sake of registration. Further, it is urged that, whatever the intention of the mortgagee may have been, the law has been infringed, and the registration cannot be held to be good. One more panic was taken in the grounds of appeal, namely, ground No. 5. But it has not been pressed.

(3.) As to the attestation, it is clear that the learned District Judge believed the marginal witness who swore that the executants signed the deed before him. The finding, therefore, of the Court below must be upheld.