Sarojini Bai vs The Custodian Evacuee Property

In this writ application, the petitioner complains that the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Hyderabad, has not given credit to her for the sum of Rs. 3,500/ paid as earnest money in respect of the house purchased by her and that while confirming the sale the Custodian directed her to pay the said sum of Rs. 3,500/-.

The payment of the earnest money of Rs. 3,500/- is evidenced by the receipt dated the 8th July 1949, executed by the vendor. The receipt is properly drawn and bears one anna revenue stamp. Also, in the sale-deed, there is a recital admitting the receipt of this amount. The Custodian held that the receipt was not sufficient in law since it was not registered under the provisions of S. 17 of the Registration Act. Evidently he seems to rely on a ruling reported in ''Dayal Singh v. Inder Singh'', AIR 1926 P C 94. But the law has since been amended and an explanation has been added to S. 17, Cl. 2 of the Registration Act. The receipt in question comes within the ambit of the explanation and the Indian Registration Act is now applicable to this State. The explanation referred to is restrospective in effect. In this connection we refer to a Full Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported in Bansi Dhar and Others Vs. Sampat Kumar Singh and Others, wherein it was held that a document executed on the 1st September 1918 was covered by the explanation to S. 17. We may also refer to a ruling of the Calcutta High Court reported in ''Nagarbashi Bank v. Meghnath Maishan'', 129 Ind Cas 839, wherein it has been held that the explanation to S. 17 is restrospective in effect.

In the result we and that the view of the Custodian that the receipt required registration cannot be upheld and we quash his order. We direct him to confirm the sale without the petitioner having to pay the sum of Rs. 3,500/- as required by him. If the amount has already been paid by the petitioner to the custodian, it should be refunded. Petition allowed.