JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THESE two revision applications can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
(2.) THE firm Janee Khusalji Jethaji had decrees against one Khuda Bux in execution of which two houses were attached. His daughter-in-law Smt. Jannat Bai claimed one of these houses and his wife Smt. Ramsani claimed the other house i*n execution proceedings. THEse claims were rejected by the executing court. THEreupon suits under O. 21, R. 63 were brought by Smt. Jannat Bai and Ramsani respectively. THEy filed do currents executed by Khuda Bux in support of their claims. THE trial court held that these documents were liable to payment of stamp duty and were compulsorily registrable under sec. 17 of the Evidence Act. Against this finding the present revision applications have been filed. THEy have been opposed on behalf of the firm Janee Khusalji Jethaji. In Civil Revision No. 89/60 it is recited in the document by Khuda Bux that on the date of her marriage with his son on 28. 5. 49 he had contracted to give a house to Smt. Jannat Bai in dower, that he had no house at that time, that it was settled that he should deposit the money in cash for the purchase of the house, that he deposited Rs. 6401/- with the father of the bride, that on 22. 11. 52 he purchased a house for Rs. 6000/- under a registered sale-deed and that - "i, Khuda Bux, give that house to you Smt. Jannat Bai in lieu of dower in accordance with my agreement at the time of marriage. From today I and my heirs shall have no claim to it. " On behalf of the applicants it is argued that this document merely records a past transaction. I am unable to accept this contention. The document purports to transfer the house to Smt. Jannat Bai. As such it is liable to payment of stamp duty on the sum of Rs. 6401/- which is the consideration for which it was transferred. Under Sec. 2 (14) of the Stamp Act "instrument" includes every document by which any right, or liability is, or purports to be, created transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. Next it was argued on behalf of the applicants that the document does not require registration as it is a gift deed executed by a Mohammedan. Reliance was placed on the observations of Suhrawardy J. in Nasib Ali Vs. Wajed Ali (1) to the following effect: - "under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act an instrument of gift must be registered. By the expression 'instrument of gift of immovable property' I understand an instrument or deed which creates, makes or completes the gift, thereby transferring the ownership of the property from the executant to the person in whose favour it is executed. In order to affect the immovable property, the document must be a document of transfer; and if it is a document of transfer it must be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. The present document does not affect immovable property. It does not transfer the immovable property from the donor to the donee. It only affords evidence of the fact that the donor has observed the formalities under the Mahometan Law in making the gift to the donee. I am prepared to go so far as to hold that a document like the present one is not compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act, or the Registration Act does not apply to a so called deed of gift executed by a Mahomedan, But for purposes of the present case it is not necessary to go so far because I hold that this document is only a piece of evidence, and conceding that it should have been registered, the effect of the non-registration is to make it inadmissible in evidence under sec. 49 of the Registration Act. " The above observations are merely obiter. The learned counsel for the applicants was unable to cite any ruling in which it might have been held that a gift deed executed by a Moham-edan does not require registration under sec. 17 of the Registration Act. Where the document purports to gift immovable property or to transfer any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property, it attracts the provisions of sec. 17 (1) of the Registration Act, irrespective of whether the transfer is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or not. I would like to point out that the above document is not strictly speaking a gift deed. However even assuming it to be gift deed it is compulsorily registrable under sec. 17 Registration Act. The document in Civil Revision No. 90/60 is clearly a gift-deed. It recites in express words that the house which he purchased for Rs. 1901/- was being gifted under it by Khuda Bux to his wife Smt. Ramsani. This document is liable to the payment of stamp duty and is also compulsorily registrable for reasons given above in connection with the document in Civil Revision No. 89/60. I accordingly dismiss both the revision applications with costs The trial court should impound both the above documents under sec. 33 of the Stamps Act and should proceed further in accordance with the provisions of sec. 38 of that Act. .;