Skip to content


Doraiswami Chetti and ors. Vs. Vachani Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.A.O. No. 95 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Mad601
ActsRegistration Act, 1908 - Sections 17(1), 17(2) and 49; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 92; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 21, Rules 58 and 63
AppellantDoraiswami Chetti and ors.
RespondentVachani Mudaliar
Appellant AdvocateP.V. Subramaniam, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV. Venkatesan, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases ReferredKoti Bharna Lingappa v. Nilkantapayya Wadyar
Excerpt:
- - it is more directly in point and it lays down quite clearly that where moneys are paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and the receipts which are taken purport to put an end to the mortgage rights, the receipts are compulsorily rcgistrable under clause (1) of section 17, registration act that they do not come within the exception contained in clause 2(xi) of section 17 of the act and furthermore that in such a case it cannot be contended that section 49, registration act is not a bar to the receipts being taken as evidence of payment of the mortgage debt......apparently attached by mistake and holding that the claimant was not entitled to subrogation.the learned district judge in appeal took a different view and held that ex. a.1(a) did not require registration. he was guided mainly by the full (division?) bench decision of the calcutta high court in -- 'rajani kanta nath v. ali noaz : air1930cal79 . the facts in that decision were rather peculiar and i do not propose to go into them. the bench decision of our high court in -- 'koti bharna lingappa v. nilkantapayya wadyar', air 1938 mad 533 (b), was not placed before the learned district judge.it is more directly in point and it lays down quite clearly that where moneys are paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and the receipts which are taken purport to put an end to the mortgage rights,.....
Judgment:

Mack, J.

1. This is an appeal by the decree-holders in O. S. No. 343 of 1936, who obtained a money decree against Muthukumaraswami Mudali with a charge on Certain items of property some of which had been previously mortgaged to defendant 3 in that suit. This second appeal arises out of a claim petition made by the respondent Muthukumaraswami Mudali's son minor Vachani Mudali represented by his mother as next friend in 1949 claiming the charged items as in his possession on the ground that in a partition deed with his father in 1939 he was allotted them and furthermore that he discharged the usufructuary mortgage Ex. A.9 to defendant 3 on 15-7-1943. In support of this discharge he filed a receipt Ex. A.1(a) which was unregistered.

The subordinate Judge held that Ex. A.1(a) was inadmissible in evidence as it was compulsorily registrable under Section 17, Clause (1), Registration Act and did not come within the exception contained in Clause (2)(xi) of Section 17. He accordingly dismissed this claim petition filed under Order 21, Rule 58 and Section 47, C. P. C., allowing it only in respect of certain items which had not been charged in the decree and had been apparently attached by mistake and holding that the claimant was not entitled to subrogation.

The learned District Judge in appeal took a different view and held that Ex. A.1(a) did not require registration. He was guided mainly by the Full (Division?) Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in -- 'Rajani Kanta Nath v. Ali Noaz : AIR1930Cal79 . The facts in that decision were rather peculiar and I do not propose to go into them. The Bench decision of our High Court in -- 'Koti Bharna Lingappa v. Nilkantapayya Wadyar', AIR 1938 Mad 533 (B), was not placed before the learned District Judge.

It is more directly in point and it lays down quite clearly that where moneys are paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee and the receipts which are taken purport to put an end to the mortgage rights, the receipts are compulsorily rcgistrable under Clause (1) of Section 17, Registration Act that they do not come within the exception contained in Clause 2(xi) of Section 17 of the Act and furthermore that in such a case it cannot be contended that Section 49, Registration Act is not a bar to the receipts being taken as evidence of payment of the mortgage debt.

In the light of this decision by which I am bound and with which with great respect I am in agreement, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge appears to be correct. The finding of the learned. District Judge that respondent is entitled to subrogation is set aside.

2. Another point has been taken for the first time by learned advocate for the appellant, namely, that the rights of subrogation claimed in this case are not open to a mortgagor under Section 92, T. P. Act. He would place the son of the first defendant-decree-holder in the position of his father as mortgagor by virtue of his having been allotted these charged items at a family partition.

In strict law, however the son would be in a position of an assignee from the original mortgagor and would not be barred from rights of subrogation. Had he been the legal representative of his father, the position might have been quite different. This is a point taken for the first time in second appeal. I am far from clear how the learned District Judge entertained an appeal in the first instance under Order 21 Rule 58 by a claimant who was not a party to the suit.

The ordinary remedy he had against the learned Subordinate Judge's order was a suit under Order 21, Rule 63. No such objection was, however, taken in the lower appellate Court and the learned District Judge has passed a considered order on the merits. His order is set aside also on the merits and not on any technical grounds in the circumstances in order to put an end to this litigation, an extraordinary feature of which is that Muthukumaraswami Mudali, the original debtor, appears to be still alive, his legal representative not having been brought on record in the suit so far as the records show.

The receipt of the discharged usufructuary mortgage has been taken by his wife as guardian of his minor son, obviously in order to preserve rights of subrogation which would have been imperilled had he as a mortgagor discharged the usufructuary mortgage himself.

3. Both Advocates concede before me that 66 cents in item 22 S. No. 239/1 directed to be released from attachment by the learned District Judge as regards which no second appeal has been filed will stand released.

4. The appeal is allowed and the order ofthe Subordinate Judge is otherwise restored, withcosts.


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