BANSIDHAR Vs. BSAMPAT KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be decided by this Full Bench is set out in the referring order of the 2nd December, 1926, in the following terms: Whether the contract for sale, as embodied in the document No. 387, dated the 1 of September, 19l8, printed at page 155 of the paper- book, required to be registered?

(2.) The paper-book mentioned is the printed record of First Appeal No. 445 of 1923, and the document at page 155 purports to be a contract for the sale of immoveable property consisting of a 14-annas share in Mahal No. 1 of Mouza Dudhai for a sum of Rs. 36,000. In the body of the deed it is recited that the executants (the proposed vendors) being in need of Rs. 500. for the purchase of the stamp for the sale-deed and for other necessary expenses have taken this sum from the proposed purchasers, credit for which is to be allowed to the purchasers against the settled price of Rs. 36,000. In the concluding portion of the deed this sum of Rs. 500 is spoken of as being earnest money brat the payment was clearly a payment of a portion of the purchase-money.

(3.) The reference of the question mentioned above for the decision of this Bench was rendered necessary by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported as Dayal Singh V/s. Indar Singh 98 Ind. Cas. 508 : 24 A.L.J. 807 : A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 94 : (1926) M.W.N. 602 : 3 O.W.N. 634 : 24 L.W. 396 : 44 C.L.J. 97 : 7 P.L.T. 661 : 28 Bom. L.R. 1372 : 51 M.L.J. 788 : 31 C.W.N. 125 : 53 I.A. 214 : 28 P.L.R. 10 (P.C.).