1. On the 16th of February 1892, one Adya Bakhsh Pal mortgaged a 5-antia 4-pies share in the village Sanahan, District Basti, to Sultan Khan, to secure a sum of Rs. 499, carrying compound interest with yearly rests at the rate of one per cent. per mensem. On Sultan Khan's death, Shanker Khan and Dhaukal Khan, his sons, sold the mortgagee rights to the plaintiffs under a sale-deed, dated the 2nd of April 1909. It was registered by the Sub-Registrar of Fyzabad and, in order to give him jurisdiction, a false recital in the deed was made. It was to the effect that the mortgage of the 16th of February 1892, comprised one biswa in the village Rampur, District Fyzabad, which it did not do. The plaintiffs obtained a Succession Certificate and sued for sale on the mortgage. It was urged in defence that the recital relating to the mortgage of one biswa in Rampur was false, that the mortgage-deed and, therefore, the sale-deed covered no such property, that the Sub-Registrar of Fyzabad had no jurisdiction to register it, that the sale, therefore, was void and conferred no right on the plaintiffs to sue. The Court of first instance found that the vendors had a share in Rampur, that they sold some land situate in Rampur, and that the misdescription of that property was immaterial. On these findings, it decreed the claim. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the first Court, holding the sale-deed to contain a false recital to the effect that the mortgage of 1892 comprised one biswa in Rampur, that the Sub-Registrar of Fyzabad had no jurisdiction to register in, and that the sale-deed was void. In second appeal, two points are taken: (a) The Sub-Registrar of Fyzabad, on a right interpretation of the sale-deed, had jurisdiction to register it. (b) The Succession Certificate in respect of the mortgage debt is conclusive against the representatives of the mortgagor. There is no substance in the first point. We have carefully gone through the original of the sale-deed in question, and we find that it contains a false statement to the effect that the mortgage of the 16th of February 1892 comprised one biswa in Rampur, that it assigns the mortgagee rights only under the deed of 16th February 1892, and does not in addition thereto sell any biswa in Rampur. This undoubtedly was done with a view to give jurisdiction to the Sub Registrar of Fyzabad. The sale deed, for want of a proper registration, is void and does not convey the mortgagee rights in the mortgage of 1892, to the plaintiffs. They, therefore, have no locus standi in the suit.
2. The second point is that as the plaintiffs have obtained a Succession Certificate, Section 16 of the Succession Certificate Act bars the representatives of the mortgagor from questioning the title of the plaintiffs to recover the mortgage-debt. In support of the proposition that the Act applies to mortgage-debts, reliance is placed on the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Fateh Chand v. Muhammad Bakhsh 16 A. 259.The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that the rule laid down in the Full Bench case is not sound law, and that the Act has no application to mortgage-debts. Whatever our opinion may be, we are bound to follow the Full Bench, ruling referred to above. Section 16 of the Succession Certificate Act makes the certificate obtained by the plaintiffs conclusive against the representatives of the mortgagor. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court, and restore that of the Court of first instance, with costs.