AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Exhibit A does not seem to be compulsorily registrable so far as the portions material for the decision of this appeal are concerned. It
acknowledges the title of Parthasarathy and Rathangapani to the property in question under a prior conveyance and their possession under it for a
longtime. It then contains a covenant on the part of Parthasarathy to pay Rs. 40 to the plaintiff every year and on the part of Rathangapani another
sum of Rs. 40 to Lakshmamma. The property is made security for the payment of the amount; the last provision is that if the covenant to pay Rs.
40 is broken, the defaulter should relinquish his ownership in the property. The recital of the prior conveyance would not, of course, come within
the terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act. The covenant to pay Rs. 40 may be enforced notwithstanding the absence of registration. The
document is invalid for want of registration so far as it purports to make the property security for the payment of Rs. 40. The last provision
amounts only to an agreement that Parthasarathy and Rathangapani should give up their ownership and does not itself extinguish their right. Under
the terms of the document, therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled to sue for the amount of Rs. 40 due to her every year although she could not
bring the property to sale for the amount. Her only other right under it is to sue for specific performance of the agreement to relinquish the property
in case of default in the payment of Rs. 40. The present suit is for the recovery of the property and not for specific performance. The prayer for
recovery of possession cannot be sustained. The defendant admittedly has not paid the amount due to the plaintiff in February 1909. His Vakil is
willing that the plaintiff should have a decree for that amount. The decrees of the lower Courts are set aside and the plaintiff will have a decree for
the sum of Rs. 40 with interest at 9 per cent, from the 1st February 1909 up to date of payment. There will be no order as to costs in any of the
Courts.