Decided on March 27,2003



- (1.) Both these Civil Revision Petitions are referred to this Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court. In both these cases, Petitioners were defendants in their respective suits. The suits were decreed. They filed appeals before the Appellate Court and sought stay of further proceedings in execution. The Appellate Court granted stay on condition that the petitioners give sufficient security to the satisfaction of the lower court. The petitioners thereafter executed bonds as per Appendix G in Form No. 2. The bonds were produced before the Court alongwith affidavits. But the Court below refused to accept the security bonds on the ground that the bonds were not registered. It is against the above orders that these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.
(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that the execution of the bonds is part of the judicial proceedings and that they are not liable to be registered. According to them, the bonds were executed in favour of the court and not any particular person. Under S.17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, the decrees and orders of the court are exempted from registration. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the bond clearly states that it creates a mortgage and hence the deed is liable to be registered.
(3.) A Full Bench of this Court considered the question whether a bond executed as per the provisions under O.41 R.5 of CPC is liable to be registered, in the decision reported in R.M. Palat v. P.A. Nedungadi, 1958 KLT 635 corresponding to AIR 1958 Kerala 377. The Bench held that since the mortgage is executed in favour of the Court, it is liable to be registered under S.4 and 49 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.17 of the Registration Act. It is pertinent to note that the Full Bench did not consider the applicability of S.17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. In Para.19 of the above decision, the Full Bench held as follows: In view of our conclusion that the security bond should be in Form No. 3 of Appendix G and that such a bond requires registration as a result of S.4 and 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and S.49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, quite apart from S.17 of the latter Act - we consider it unnecessary to deal with the controversy and express our views on the true scope and ambit of S.17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.