Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.73 seconds)Pahladi Lal vs Musammat Laraiti And Ors. on 10 June, 1918
3. These observations were made on the facts of that particular ease. In that case there was no property within the jurisdiction of the sub-registrar of Allahabad and yet the instrument was registered by the sub-registrar of that place. On those facts the instrument was held to be ineffective and inoperative. Learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to the case in Pahladi Lal v. Mt. Laraiti ('19) 6 A.I.R. 1919 All. 450. In that case it was held that where in a mortgage deed certain immovable property was included which actually existed within the jurisdiction of the registering officer but the mortgagor had no title thereto, the deed would be deemed to be duly registered according to law. It is not necessary for me to cite all the authorities that have been discussed at the bar. The ratio decidendi deducible from the cases cited before me is that where the property is not in existence at all and has been included in an instrument for the purposes of registration, the registration would be invalid. Similarly, if the property exists and the parties did not intend it to be effected by the document, the registration would be invalid. But if the property actually exists and the parties intended to transfer it, the registration would not be affected merely because the mortgagee or transferee fails to prove the title of the mortgagor or the transferor. In Biswanath Prasad v. channdra Narayan ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 (P.C.) 8 their Lordships reviewed the case law on the subject and held that the document in question was inoperative as it was registered at the office of the sub-registrar within whose sub-district certain property covered by the deed although existed was not intended to be transferred. At p. 516 their Lordships observed:
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Bisal Singh And Ors. vs Roshan Lal And Anr. on 21 January, 1924
2. It is not disputed that the property in Budaun town is situate within the sub-district of the sub-registrar in whose office the instrument in question was registered. It is however contended that for practical purposes the property should be deemed to be non-existent because the executant had no right in it. Reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for the appellant on the case in Bisal Singh v. Roshan Lal ('24) 11 A.I.R. 1924 All. 373 in which a learned Judge of this Court made the following observations:
1