Skip to content


Kesri Mal Vs. Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All338
AppellantKesri Mal
RespondentRam and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. iii of 1877 {indian registration act), section 17, clause (n) - mortgage--receipt purporting to extinguish mortgage--receipt only covering interest of one co-mortgagee--registration. - - that receipt standing alone, and without any evidence except evidence that it was the receipt of ramji mal, would not have supported a plea that the mortgage bad been discharged by payment......and ramji mal. the defendants-mortgagors pleaded payment. in order to prove payment of part of the mortgage money they produced a receipt which purported to be a receipt of ramji mal for his share of the mortgage money. it was objected that the receipt should have been registered under section 17 of act no. iii of 1877. the mortgage was for over rs. 100. the subordinate judge held that clause (n) of section 17 applied, and that the receipt was exempt from registration. the district judge in appeal held that the receipt purported to extinguish the mortgage, and consequently was not within the protection of clause (n). there being no other evidence of payment of this particular sum, he decreed the plaintiff's suit.2. what the receipt purports is this. it purports to be a receipt in full.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.

1. This was a suit for sale brought by the assignee of a mortgage. The mortgagees were Sri Ram and Ramji Mal. The defendants-mortgagors pleaded payment. In order to prove payment of part of the mortgage money they produced a receipt which purported to be a receipt of Ramji Mal for his share of the mortgage money. It was objected that the receipt should have been registered under Section 17 of Act No. III of 1877. The mortgage was for over Rs. 100. The Subordinate Judge held that Clause (n) of Section 17 applied, and that the receipt was exempt from registration. The District Judge in appeal held that the receipt purported to extinguish the mortgage, and consequently was not within the protection of Clause (n). There being no other evidence of payment of this particular sum, he decreed the plaintiff's suit.

2. What the receipt purports is this. It purports to be a receipt in full for Ramji Mal's two-thirds share of the mortgage money. It shows that there was another person interested in the mortgage and another share unaccounted for by the receipt. That receipt standing alone, and without any evidence except evidence that it was the receipt of Ramji Mal, would not have supported a plea that the mortgage bad been discharged by payment. It would have supported a plea, if it was a genuine receipt, as to which we express no opinion, that Ramji Mal's interest in the mortgage had been extinguished by payment. Clause (n) does not say--'when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage, or the interest of any mortgagee in the mortgage.' The words are--'when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage.' For the purposes of Clause (n) extraneous evidence cannot be looked at: the receipt coming within Clause (n) was admissible in evidence without registration.

3. We set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court, and remand this case under Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to that Court to be disposed of on the merits. The costs of this appeal will abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //