AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harnam Singh, J.—By this order I dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 446 and 447 of 1952.
In -- '' AIR 1931 36 (Privy Council) Lord Tomlin in delivering the judgment of their Lordships of the. Privy Council said :
"In this connection it may be observed that though an agreement embodied in a written document requiring registration u/s 17, Registration Act, and not so registered cannot be proved by the written document (see Section 49, Registration Act) or by oral evidence see ''Shaw v. Foster'' (1872) 5 HL 321 (B), yet where there is no written agreement there seems no reason why the intent to create a security by deposit of title deeds under the execution provided for in Section 59, T. P, Act, should not be evidenced by written as well as by oral evidence."
For ''Shaw v. Foster'', reference may be made to (1872) 5 HL 321 (B). In this connection Section 91, Indian Evidence Act may be seen,
In the present case Dip Chand made the receipt, Ex. A, on 15-8-1944, and Amin Lal made the receipt, Ex. B, on 15-8-1944, in favour of the vendees. In the receipt, Ex. A, Dip Chand stated that on receipt of Rs. 1,550/- he had sold land measuring 18 bighas 1 biswa to the vendees. In the receipt, Ex. B, Amin Lal stated that on receipt of Rs. 550/- he had sold land measuring 5 bighas 5 biswas to the vendees. Plainly the receipts fall within Section 17(1) (b) and (c), Indian Registration Act If so, the receipts did not affect the immovable pro perty sold. Those receipts were not provable by oral evidence.
No other point arises in these proceedings.
In the result I dismiss Regular Second Appeals Nos. 446 and 447 of 1952.
In Regular Second Appeals Nos. 440 and 447 of 1952 I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.