Skip to content


Baijnath Vs. Lachman Das and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All888
AppellantBaijnath
RespondentLachman Das and ors.
Excerpt:
registered and unregistered documents - mortgagee under registered deed not entitled to priority over holder of subsequent decree on prior unregistered deed--act iii of 1877 (registration act), section 50. - - in the case before us, the defendants had attached in execution the property in question under a good decree they had obtained on an unregistered bond; it has been found, and is admitted, that this decree was not false, collusive or otherwise bad, but it is contended that the plaintiff's registered instrument must prevail under section 50 of the registration act against that of the defendant......on an unregistered bond; and the plaintiff brought this suit on a registered bond affecting the attached property, seeking for a decree on his registered bond, and a declaration that the defendant's decree should not operate against the property, because it was fraudulent and collusive. it has been found, and is admitted, that this decree was not false, collusive or otherwise bad, but it is contended that the plaintiff's registered instrument must prevail under section 50 of the registration act against that of the defendant. this would be so if that instrument had not at the time of the plaintiff's suit been merged in a decree. the words 'not being a decree or order' in the section in question are conclusive against the plaintiff's claim to get the declaration he sought in his suit......
Judgment:

Brodhurst and Tyreell, J.

1. The case of Kanhaiya Lal v. Bansidhar Weekly Notes 1884 p. 136 differs in essential respects from the present case. In it the defendant held not only the registered document, but also a prior decree based on it. Again the case of Shahi Ram v. Shib Lal Weekly Notes 1885 p. 63 is inapplicable, for in it the rival parties held contemporaneous decrees. In the case before us, the defendants had attached in execution the property in question under a good decree they had obtained on an unregistered bond; and the plaintiff brought this suit on a registered bond affecting the attached property, seeking for a decree on his registered bond, and a declaration that the defendant's decree should not operate against the property, because it was fraudulent and collusive. It has been found, and is admitted, that this decree was not false, collusive or otherwise bad, but it is contended that the plaintiff's registered instrument must prevail under Section 50 of the Registration Act against that of the defendant. This would be so if that instrument had not at the time of the plaintiff's suit been merged in a decree. The words 'not being a decree or order' in the section in question are conclusive against the plaintiff's claim to get the declaration he sought in his suit. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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