1. We must accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the one cent of land in Amalapur was included in the sale-deed, Exhibit A, purely for the purpose of getting the deed registered by the Sub-Registrar of that place without any intention of passing title in it to the vendee. That finding is supported by the evidence and no valid objection has been urged against it. On that finding we must hold, following Rama Naik v. Nagamuthu Nachiari 43 Ind.Cas. 515; 22 M.L.T. 516, that the present case falls within the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Harendra Lal Roy Chowdhuri v. Haridasi Debi I.L.R. (1914) Cal. 972. The action of the parties in this case was a fraud on the registration law. The fact that there was land corresponding to the one cent included in the deed, belonging to the vendor is not sufficient to take it out of that principle as the finding is that it was not intended that the deed should affect the land in any way.
2. On this view the sale-deed, Exhibit A, must be taken to have not been properly registered; and the title to A Schedule properties was therefore not validly conveyed to the eighth defendant.
3. The next question is as to limitation. Article 44 does not apply as there was no sale at all in law to be set aside. See Narayanan v. Lakshmanan I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 456 and Petherperumal Chetty v. Muniandy Servai I.L.R. (1908) Oak 551. The article really applicable is Article 144 but the period required for it has not expired yet. There is thus no bar by limitation.