Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kindersley, J.
1. The respondents, admitting a liability to the appellant to the amount of Rs. 95-14-0, gave him a bond on the 24th September 1873 and hypothecated immoveable property to secure the repayment of that sum with interest at the rate of 18 per cent. : the debt was to be paid in four instalments, three of the amounts of Rs. 23-5-4 on the 26th October in the years 1874, 1875, and 1876, respectively, and the fourth of Rs. 25-14-0 on the 26th October 1877.
2. It was declared that these instalments should be accepted on account of principal, and that the whole of the interest should be paid on the date of the last instalment. There was no provision that the debtor should be at liberty to anticipate the payment of any instalment; and consequently the lowest sum he could compel the creditor to accept was considerably in excess of Rs. 100. The Judge has held that the interest created by the deed was in excess of Rs. 100, and that, as a mortgage, the instrument was one of which the registration was compulsory.
3. We hold that the Judge has adopted the proper test in determining the value of the interest created by the mortgage, namely, the amount of the least sum recoverable.
4. The Registratsion Act (VIII of 1871) made the registration compulsory of instruments which purport or operate to create any interest in immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100. It is the value of the interest created, not the consideration for the creation of the interest, which must be regarded. Cases may readily be suggested, in which the consideration falls far below the value of the interest created. The object of the registration law is to prohibit concealed conveyances which may deteriorate in any considerable degree from the value of the property: it is immaterial whether such interests have been created for an adequate consideration or for any consideration.
5. But while we agree with the Judge that effect cannot be given to the instrument as a mortgage, because of the omission to register it, we are not prepared to hold that no effect is to be given to the instrument as a money bond.
6. It is not receivable in evidence for the purpose of affecting immoveable property, nor in proof of any transaction affecting such property, but it may be received as evidence of the personal obligation. Stri Seshathri Ayyengar v. Sankhara Ayen 7 M.H.C.R. 296.
7. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the fourth instalment with interest, and the interest on the earlier instalments, up to the times when recovery of them severally was barred, the payment of the last instalment and of the interest having become due within three years before the institution of the suit.
8. The decree of the Lower Appellate Court will be modified accordingly, and the parties will respectively pay and receive proportionate costs in all the Courts.