CHEKKUR PUTHALUTH POOTHATI EDATHIL KUNHI SANKARAN NAMBIAR Vs. PONNIATH AKATHOOTHU NARAYANAN TIRUMUNPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit on a mortgage. The first defendant, the owner of the property, executed Exhibit A to the third defendant in 1908. The third defendant assigned it to the plaintiff. The defence is that the mortgage is invalid for want of proper execution, proper attestation, and proper registration.

(2.) The first item of the plaint property was the only property originally intended to be mortgaged. The deed was engrossed and signed by the first defendant and attested by two witnesses, with this intention. Subsequently, the second item of property was included, The finding is that this was done with the knowledge and consent of the mortgagor and in the presence of the attesting witnesses.

(3.) The lower Courts have expressed themselves somewhat loosely in giving findings upon this part of the case. Both the Courts are agreed that there was no fraud either against the registration laws or against any of the parties to the contract, in making this interpolation. It is also clear, from what both the lower Courts say, that the object of adding the second item was not so much to give an additional security to the mortgagee as it was to enable the mortgagor to get the document registered near the place where he was living. The evidence makes it clear that it was to serve the convenience of both the parties to the transaction that this item was included, because the aim was to avoid delay in registering the deed. On these facts, we feel no hesitation in holding that the deed does not offend the rule enunciated in Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Haridasi Debi (1914) I.L.R., 41 Calc., 972 (P.C.), if it is otherwise valid. The object of the interpolation was not to effect a fraud upon the registration law. Whatever might have been the original intention of the parties, they deliberately included the second item in the mortgage.