1. This case is similar to that of Second Appeal 102 of 1880, which was referred by Mr. Justice Muttusami Ayyar and myself for the decision of the Full Bench with reference to the conflicting rulings of this Court and the High Court of Bombay with those of the High Court of Allahabad upon the question of the registration value of instruments which, while reciting a consideration within 100 rupees, may eventually operate to charge the property with a larger sum.
2. The case was heard by a Bench of three Judges of whom the present Chief Justice was one.
3. The question referred was not, however, considered, as the Court was of opinion “that the terms ‘ I bind myself to pay within the 4th May 1876 Rs. 92 with interest at the rate of 9 pies per pagoda per mensem’ left it open to the mortgagor to discharge the incumbrance at any time he thought fit before the day named. The deed did not therefore necessarily create an interest in land of the value of 100 rupees.”
4. This view, if applied to the present case, classes the document as one not compulsorily registerable, and it appears to me that whether the principle enunciated in Darshan Singh v. Hanwanta I.L.R. 1 All. 274 be right or not, the rule laid down in Second Appeal 102 of 1880, if applied to the particular case there dealt with, must have had the same result. Though the obligor was not bound to pay before a certain date (and if he exercised his option and did not pay before that date, the amount chargeable upon the property would be in excess of 100 rupees he was not prevented from paying the debt immediately.
5. I am inclined to concur in the view taken by the Bombay High Court, in Nana bin Lakshman v. Anant Babaji I.L.R. 2 Bom. 353 which seems to have been in accordance with the view of the Calcutta High Court, Rohinee Debia v. Shib Chundu Chatterjee 12 W.R. 558 upon the similar provisions of the earlier Act of 1864, and of the late Chief Justice and Mr. Justice KINDERSLEY in Narasayya Chetti v. Guruvappa Chetti I.L.R. 1 Mad. 380. I agree in the opinions of the learned Judges in that case. A rule which may necessitate a calculation of a value dependent on contingencies and often not readily ascertainable at the time of registration, is so inconvenient that it can scarcely be supposed that the Legislature could have had it in contemplation. As expressed by the late Chief Justice in that case, I think the value of the present interest should always determine” the amount for registration purposes, and as the balance of authority preponderates on the side of the opinion of the High Court of Bombay, I would reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the suit to him for re-trial of the second ground of appeal which he has not noticed.
6. The costs should be costs in the cause.
Muttusami Ayyar, J.
7. I concur.