SHEIKH JUMAN Vs. MOHAMMAD NABINEOAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover three plots of land which originally belonged to the plaintiffs Nos, 1 and 2 and the predecessor of the other plaintiffs. The defendants are in possession and the principal question is whether they obtained possession as usufructuary mortgagees for a term which has expired or in the character of purchasers. The defendants produced two unregistered conveyances executed by some of the plaintiffs or their predecessors one relating to plots Nos. 1 and 2 and the other to plot No. 3 Neither plots Nos. 1 and 2 nor plot No. 3 exceeds Rs. 100 in value. Relying upon the unregistered documents the Courts below have found that the transaction in each case was a sale, and not a mortgage, and that the sales were completed by the possession duly delivered by the vendors to the vendees. To the extent, therefore, of the title so acquired and so found the plaintiff s suit has been wholly dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs have appealed and it has been contended on their behalf that the documents on which the Courts below have relied are not admissible in evidence for want of registration. The point is one upon which there appears to be no express authority, at least none was cited in the argument.

(3.) Under the third Clause of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act in the case of immoveable property of a value less than Rs. 100" a sale "may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property." It is clear, therefore, that in such cases an unregistered instrument unaccompanied by possession is of no avail and confers no title Makhan Lal Pal v. Bunku Behari Ghose 19 C. 628 : 9 Ind. Dec (N.S.) 858. Under the Registration Act, to which by Section 4 of the Trar***2er of Property: Act the second and third clauses of Section 54 of the latter Act are to be read as supplemental, the unregistered instrument would not be admissible in evidence. But when the property sold is less than Rs. 100 in value and the sale is effectuated or completed by delivery of possession, there is no reason whys the transaction should not be evidenced by a writing in the terms of a conveyance, even though the document has not been registered. The sale can be effected in two ways either by a registered instrument or by delivery, Registration is not necessary except as an alternative to delivery. Exhypothesi there is delivery. Where there is delivery there need not be a registered instrument and if an instrument is executed but not registered there is no reason why it should not be admitted as evidence of the nature of the transaction, because neither the Transfer of Property Act nor the Registration Act requires its registration. The title passes by the delivery and does not depend on the unregistered document which is merely a piece of evidence.