JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the vendors against an order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, holding that the agreement Ex. A/6 dated 14-5-56 is compulsory registrable and is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.
(2.) THE material facts are these. THE applicants sold a portion of their house by means of a sale-deed executed on 2-5-56 and registered on 14-6-56. It was presented for registration on 14 5-56. Respondent No. 1 filed the present suit for pre-emption on 18-4-57. THE applicants filed an agreement Ex. A/6 dated 14-5-56 under which the vendees respondents No. 2 and 3 agreed to reconvey the property. THEy also filed a registered sale-deed 25-3-57 under which the property was recon-veyed by respondents No. 2 and 3 to the applicants. The case of the applicants is that on the date on which the sale-deed dated 2-5-56 was executed they had entered into an oral agreement for reconveying the property with respondents No. 2 and 3 which was reduced into writing subse-quently on 14-5-56. On an objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff-pre-emptor (resp No. 1) the trial court held that the agreement dated 14-5-56 requires registration. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that it falls under sec. l7 (2) (v) and does not require registration. Before the amendment of the Transfer of Property Act in 1929 it was the practice to mortgage property by conditional sale by executing two documents - one conveying the property and the other containing an agreement for reconveyance. The question which used to arise frequently was whether the two documents evi-dence a single transaction of mortgage by conditional sale or whether the second document which evidences an agreement to reconvey is separable from the first sale-deed. In Harkisandas vs. Bai Dhanu (l) a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that where the intention of the parties was to constitute a mortgage the agreement to reconvey required registration and was inadmissible in evidence without being registered. Where on the other hand the transaction was a bona fide sale and the agreement to reconvey was an independent transaction the agreement for repurchase came within sec. 17 (2) (v) and did not require registration. This question has now lost all its importance as after its amendment in 1929 the Transfer of Property Act lays down that unless the condition for reconveyance is embodied in the document which purports to effect the sale the transaction does not amount to a mortgage. So the Intention of the Parties has become immaterial and an agreement to reconvey contained in a separate document is a separate transaction which is exempt from registration u/s. I7 (2) (v ). I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the trial court and direct that the agreement dated 14-5-56 shall be admitted in evidence. The costs of this revision application shall abide the final result of the suit. . ;