Hari Chand vs Kartar Singh

Chopra, J.—This appeal arises out of a money suit decreed against the appellant by both the Courts below. The suit was on the basis of a bond dated, 11-1-2004 by which Rs. 1,900/- were advanced to the appellant with agreement to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 1/9- per cent per mensem. In addition to other stipulations certain immoveable property was hypothecated for the payment of the loan.

R.B. Anant Ram on behalf of the appellant argues (1) that the bond being unregistered could not form the basis of a money suit; (2) that the consideration of the bond had been paid by execution of another bond in favour of Balwant Singh brother of the original creditor. I, however, do not see any force in either of these objections. non registration of a compulsorily registerable document leads only to two consequences: (1) It cannot affect any movable property comprised therein; & (2) It cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. It can, surely, be used as evidence of a transaction not affecting the property comprised therein, when it is separable and divisible from the part which requires registration. A personal covenant to pay the debt in a mortgage transaction is always considered as such a separable transaction from the portion of the document charging the property, and consequently an unregistered mortgage document can be admitted as evidence of the personal covenant. The money suit was brought on the basis of the personal covenant embodied in the bond and was therefore, competent.

The second objection is simply frivolous. (The rest of the judgment is not material for purposes of this report.)

Passey, J.

I agree.