DATTATRAYA SHANKER MOTE & ORS. versus ANAND CHINTAMAN DATAR & ORS.

:OATTATRAYA SHANKER MOTE & ORS. ' v. ANAND CHINTAMAN DATAR & ORS. October 3, 1974 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] Transfer of Property A.ct (4 of 1882) s. 100, proviso-If protecthm Is afforded to a simple mortgagee.-Compromlse decree

creating charge, If covered b)• s. 100-l'ransferee for cmtsfderaricm if includes mortgagec-'ln the hands of mea11ink of-Lis pendens applicability. The appellants filed a suit for the recovery of a money debt against the res· pondents. The suit was compromised and by the compromise decree three items of the respondent's property were1 sought to be charged. The compromise decre~ was presented in the Registrar's office and was noted in Book No. 1, but, due to the negligence of that office only ,the charge on one item of property was ·specifi· cally rec~rded in the registers mentioned in s. 51 and the Indices mentioned in s. 55 of the Registration Act. The appellants, after realising some money by the sale of the itec1 of property with respect to which the charge was specifically re· corded in the Regist.rar's office, filed on execution application for the recovery bf balance of monel by the sale of one of the items of property with respect to which the Registrars office had not recorded the charge. That property, in the meanwhile, war. mortgaged under two simple mortgages. The mortgagee, claim- ing to be ignorant of the prior charge, objected to its sale in the execution pro- ceedings initiated by the appellants; but his objection was overruled and the pro· perty was sold in execution.

The mortgagee under the two simple mortgages field a suit for recovery of the amount due to him. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that though he had no actual or constructive notice of the charge in· favour of the appellants, yet, the charge had priority over the subsequent mortgages and could be enforc.ed against the mortgagee in as much as a simple mortgage with- out possession, did not give the mortgagee the protection given by the amended proviso to s. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides that a charge shall not be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge,

On appeals against the order arising out of the execution application of the appellants and against the judgment dismissing the mortgagee's suit, the High Court held against the appellant• on the ground that the .mortgage in favour of the respondent was protected under the proviso to s. 100 and was free from the charge in favour of the appellants.

In appeals to this Court, on !he question of competing priorities between a charge created by the decree and the subsequent simple mortgage, HELD : (Per Curiam) : The appeals should be dismissed. [243 D-E;

258 CJ (Per Jaganmohan Reddy and Alu.giriswumi, JJ : ) (I) The charge created by the terms of the decree is covered by s. 100 of the Act. A compromise decree, not being the result of a decision by the court, but an acceptance by the court of something to which the parties had agreed, if it creates a charge on imn1ovable property and is duly registered, it amounts to the creation of security by act of parties within the meaning of ~. I CO of the Act. [232 B-CJ c

(2) The finding of the courts below that the mortgagee had no notice actual or constructive of the prior charge created by the decree is correct. [231 E-C] (a) Jt was an admitted positi.on that even on a careful inquiry the mortgagee would not have known that the property was charged in favour of the appellants, in as much as, neither the property cards nor the municipal records nor the in- dii:es contained a reference to the charge on the suit property. If the property i

' '• c D. S. MOTE V, A. C. DATAR w.hlch a person wants to purchase or which Is being offered to him as mortgage or security for payment of any money is shown in Index II then he would have notice of such charse o. r mort;age and may wish to further l,lrobe by Inspecting Index 1 and Book I. · Merely inspecting Book I or Index I will not benefit him because ·all he can know ls that there ls a decree that has been registered which would not be helpful to him. [.230 H-23 lB; C·DJ

(b) The l?roviso to Explanation 1 to s. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides that m order to.amount to ~onst~ctive.notice it is nec~ssary (i) that the lllStrument has been registered and its· registration completed m the manner re· quired by the Registration Act; (ii) the instrument has been duly entered or liled in books kept under s. 51 of the Registration Act; and (iii) the particulars regard· Ing the transaction to which the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the Indices ~t under s. H of Registration Act. In the instant case construe· live notice cannot be imputed to the mortgagee since the third condition required for the \'Utl'OSe was not satisfied. [231 J>F]

(3) The protection in the proVlso to s. 100 does not apply to mortgages. In order to make It applicable It has to be shown that, (a) the property against which tllo charge is to, be enforced has been transferred for consideration; (b) the. trans· feree had no notice of the char;e, and (c) the property which is the subject-matter of the charp. Is In the hands of the person to whom such property has been tr811Sfeired. [236H-237B]

(i) The words "transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge" have "1ever been used for describi!IJ a mortgage whether it be a simple -111ortgage or mortgage with possession.

This expression has always been understood to describe a sale and in antithesis to a transfer by way of gift. Throughout the Tramfer of Property Act whenever a transfer of property is referred to without any qualification it is to the transfer of all the interests in the property. Thus the 'tramfer of property' referred to in s. 100 is the transfer of the whole. property and 110t a mere interest in or over the property like mortgage,. lease etc. [234 F·H; 236 B-El

(ii) Under English Law, the expression 'purchaser for value' includes a mortg- agee. Before the Transfer of Property Act came into force whenever any expres· sioll came up for consideration, in the absence of any specific ·aefinition under the Indian statutes, the meaning assigned in English law seems to have sometimes been applied in a general way. The usage of any term conveying a particular meaning in English Law and which ·subsequently has been incorporated in the definition · of statutes in England cannot, on that hypothesis, be imported as if that word has the same meaning under the Indian Law when our statutes adopts different con- notations. After the Act has come into force, if the Act intended to convey that a person has an absolute tit1e it has used the word 'buyer'. Through.in the marginal note in s. 56 the word 'purchaser' has been used, an analysis of the section shows that the legislature has used different terminology for connoting different con~ cepts and that it has used the word 'purchaser' as syponymous with 'buMer' and as not including the mortgagee or mortgagor or a lessee or a lessor as in En8fish Law.

[237~, E-G; 238A-B-G] (iii) The expression 'in the hands of' in the proviso is a figurative expression and is intended to convey that a person has sufficient control over the subject mat- ter, to enable him to do anything with it which the nature of that subject matter would permit. It is a multifaceted phrase connoting many meanings depending on the context. In the context of the saving clause in s. 100, the phrase was intended to convey and does convey that the buyer, as a transferee for consi- deration without notice of a charge, was in possession, including constructive possession through a tenant who has attorned to him; and that the vendor had conveyed to him all his right. title and interest in the property including posses- sion. If the intention of the Legislature was to make the proviso applicable even to a mortgage, there was no need for· it to have used the words 'in the hands of a person to whom sucb property has been because, even if the proviso is read without these words, the effect ·sought for would ensue. [234 D-E: 239 C-D, E·Gl

Arumilll !f11rayya v. Plnluttl Venkataramanamma and ors. A.LR. 1940 Mad. 701, referred to.. 16-L2S1Sup.Cl/75 ( 4) The question of prior4ty between a charge and a mortgage cannot be de- cided with reftrence to s. 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, because, that section deals with a case of transfers of interest in respect of the same immovable .pro· perty created at different times while a charge . ts not a transfer of an interest in or over immovable property. In fact, the proviso to s. 100 was amended lo get ove~ the effect of. certain decisions. which' ha.ve held that II' char,ge Was valid even against a sub3equent p11rchaser without notice on the assumptlon that a charge creates an interest in property, because all provisions r~latitlg to a simple mortg- age ·shall as for as

rri~!' be. a.pply to a charge'. [232 F·H, 23!M; 234 A~B; 240 D-EJ (5) But th.e doctrine of notice ap'att from the statutory provisions ·such as· s. 53A ·of the. Transfer of Ptoperty Act, s. 48 of the Registratibn Act and s. 27 (b) ·of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 cottespondihg to s. -19 of the Specific Relief A-ct, 1963, is firmly embedded in the jurisphidence of this country· as part of the equit- able principles which courts administer in conformity with "justice, equity and good conscience". On this appra~ch, the conclusion .would. be the same. as.if the proviso to ·s. 100 of .the Act was applicable to mortgages also. [243 B·CJ . . (6) However, it is no answer to say that merely been.use ihe ultjinate result. is the same we should read the language of s. 100 ignorin$ the purpose for 'w,hich the amendment was made or give it an interpretation which is· totally at variance with the tenor of the entire Act iii order that it ·may conform with the ultimate result. {243 C·DJ

(7) Since the finding in the instant. case is that the- respondent did not have notice· of the appellants' charge the mortgage will have a pnority over the charge of the appellants. [243 D·EJ .

(8) There is no quesiion of the appellants being protected by the doctrine~ of Lis Penie11s. [230 B·CJ c (Per Beg J : ) : ( 1) The agreement between the parties which was e01bodied in the compromise decree satisfies the requirements of s. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as it is a charge created )ly the act of parties. If the rights of a. simple mortgagee, v:ho is not in possession of the mortgage~ pro~erty, are not protected by the proviso to the section, the first part of the section will confer upon the charge-holder, the same rights as a prior simple mortgagee has ngainst a subsequent simple mortgagee even though the charge does not amount to a mortgage. [246 D·E, GJ

(2) There is no reason to differ from the views taken by the trial court and the' High Court which preclude the existence of 'grose negligence' on the part of · the respondent who had made such attempts as could be expected of a reasonable and p~dent individual to-find out whether the property to be mortgaged was sub· ject to a previous· charge. The !failure of the ,respondent to learn , of the prior <:barge on the mortgaged property could be ascribed dnly to the negltgence of the Registrar's office for which the respondent could not be made to suffer. [248 F·G]

(3) The High Court was correct in adopting the view that the respondent, as a simple mortg$gee, was not outside the protection conferred by the 11roviso to '· 100, because he was both a bona fide transferee for consideration with simple mortgagee rights 'in hand', as well as a person who had no notice, nctuat or <:onstructive, of the prior charge of the appellpnto. [250 O·HJ , (i) ·Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a mortaaae as the 'transfer of an interest In specific: i.mmovable property' and 'property' is indicative of every possible interest a person can have. Therefore; a simpt& mortgage is a transfer of pr()pertY. within the meaning of s. 5 of the Act. and the mortga~ee's rights are. 'properJy in the hands of a person to whom such property had been transferred for consideration'. If a simple mortgage amounts to a transfer of pro- perty for.the purposes ots. ioo it Is immaterial that a transfer of property lmplie11 a transfer of the' whole bundle of rights in the propertv which the transferor has for the purpose of situations dealt with by other section~. For example, s. 8 of the Act laying down the effects, incidents and implications of a transfer, em· c

D. S. MOTE V. A, C. DATAR bodies only a rule of interpretation and was meant to govern matters not expressly provided f9r in deeds of transfer; It was not at all intended to govern or lay down the meaning of 'transfer' whenever used in the Act. That has been done expressly by ss. 5 and 6. In view of the other provisions of the Mt the transferee under the proviso to s. 100 may be of, even an interest in property. The words 'such prope_rty' do ~ot stand only for 'fu)l ownership of property'. If the transfe~ of an mt~rest ID property to. a mortgagee, whether simple or usufructuary, 1s a transfer of property, •such property' could only mean, in the case of a mortgageeh th~ inter~st in property which has been transferred to the mortgagee because t at 1s also property. [249F; 253 D-E; 254 A-C. F-G] (ii) Under English Law, for the purpose of determining the priority between the owner of a legal estate and an equitable owner, a 'purchaser for value' inc .eludes a mortgagee. English equitable principle u.nder the provision of the

Transfer of Property Act, so that although the term 'purchaser is not used in. s. JOO of the Act, the proviso· seems to have been ·meant to incorporate the doctrine of a bona fide pµrchaser for value. It secaks of 'a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration without notice of

tlie · charge', and the language used was designedly wide so as to confer the bCne- fit of the proviso also l!pon persons other than purchasers of ownership· rights. [2510; 252G-2531l]

((Hi) !he ~xpression ·~n the hand~ of' could f!Ot be confined to tengible p~o­ ;perty which 1s actually ID the physical possession of the trans~ree, · because, ·property· as defined in s. 6, includes both tangible and intangible property and ex· tends to rights and interests in property. 'Possession' is only one of the meanings of the expression 'in ha.nd' and whenever the concept of possession was intended to be conveyed, the word 'possession' had been used as for example in Explana- tion II to s. 3.

In the proviso to s. 100, the Legislature deliberately employed the concept of ~property in hand' in contradistinction to 'property in the possession of'· a transferee, so as to include cases where a person has· a right, which is intan. gible property, vested in him. The right of a simple mortga¥~e may be capable of being spoken of as 'possessed' by the mortgagee, but the right could more ap· propriately be spoken of as either 'vested in the transferee'; or, as property 'm the hands of the transferee'. The object of employing this terminology in the proviso seems to be to include such rights as those of a simple mortgagee, {249· G-H; 250 C·G]

Observation contra in Arumilli Surayya '" Pinisettl Venkataraman11111111a & . Ors. A.LR. 1940 Mad. 701 overruled. ( 4) The appellants cannot contend that their prior rights would be protrcted by the principle underlying s. 48 of the Act because; (a) Apart from the..quafify- ing words, 'so far as may be' in s. 100, one of the conditions for the applicability of s. 48 is that there must be an actual transfer of property, (b) Another condi- tion is that the previous and the su.bsequently created rights cannot all .exist or be exercised to their full extent together, \Vhich condition .is not satisfied in the present case. (c) The prior right of the charge holder could only obtain priority provided other things are not unequal. (d) The conditions of priority as. bet· ween the hofder of a previous charge and a subsequent simple mortgage are completely covere.d by s. 100. [251 B-E]

( 5) If the same result on the question of a priority of a simple mortgage as against a charge, of which the mortgagee has no notice, can be rea.ched by re; sorting to the principle of 'equity, jus.tiee and good conscience' s. 100 itself can be rend ns a direct statutory recognition of, the very principles, beca:use, it contums comprehensively the requirements of equity, justice and good conscie11cc. [2~4H-255B]

(6) A wide and liberal interpretation must. be given to the proviso to extend the benefit of the amended section to mortgagees also, as bona fide traiuferees for value-the word 'purchaser' having been deliberately eschewed. The amend- ment, made to negativ~ the view in sQ.me cases that a charge could be enforce!l even against a bona fide purchaser. for value without notice, should be .inter- 11reted to amplify the .remecj.y an.d suppress the mischief aimed at. Decisions had also been given· until' now, sinCe the amendment of s. 100 in 1928, or the assumption that a simple mortgagee is also covered by the protection conferred bv the amended powers.

There is no reason why a new path or its meaning .shouid now be taken. [225 D-F; 256 FoHJ [1975] 2 s.p.R. CJ Tber.e is no question t\f the mortgage beina struck by the doctrine of Lis PC"11de11s, (258 A-CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1882-1883 of 1967. Ap1,eals from the judgment and order dated the 12th November 1962 of the Bombay :A:igh Court in First Appeals Nos. 668 of 1957 and 40 of 1960.

V. S, Desai', and K. Ra.f Choudhry, for the appellants. Navnit A. Shah and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .Taganmohan Reddy J., M. H. Beg, J. gave a separate Opinion.

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.-In both these appeals by certificate the question of competing priorities between a charge created by n decree and a subsequent simple mortgage has to be determined. The appel- lants had filed Qvil Suit No. 741 of 1938 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,34,000/· with interest from respondents 1 to 7. On March 31, 1941 a com.promise decree was passed under which a charge was creat• cd for the decretal amount on three pieces of property belonging to the said respondents 1 to 7. These properties comprise a house in Shuk- rawar Peth and Kekakuva Mansion in Budhwar Peth both at Poona and a chawl in Kalyan. This decree was registered on April 7, 1941 but due to inadvertence the charge on the Kakakuva Mansion in Budhwar Peth at Poona was not shown in ~he Index of registration. The signi- ficance of this omission wil.L become evident. when the full facts are narrated. Th,_ereafter on June 27, 1949 the respondents 1 to 1 mort- gaged the K.akakuva Mansion to the plaintiff respondent 14 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. The respondents created a further charge on Septem- ber 13, 1949 in favour of the said plaintiff respond·ent

14 for Rs. 50,000/- On July 7, 1951 a charge was created by a decree in favour of respondent 15 for a sum of Rs. 59,521/11/- under an award decree. In the meantime the appellants had recovered some amounts

by execution of their decree in Civil Suit No. 741 of 1938 biy sale of the property at Shukrawar Peth at Poona and the chaw! at Kalyan. In spite of th-ese sales a large balance was still due, and in order to recuver the balance of Rs. 1,57.164/- appellants filed Darkhast No. 32 of 195::! in the Court of the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Poona for the sale of Kakakuva Mansion over which, as we have said earliet. there was a chJrge created in favour of the appellants by the decree of March 31, 1941. Notices were issued under 0.21 r.66 of the Code of Civil Procedure to respondent 14 and other respondents. The Executing Court, however, held that the presence of plaintiff- respondent 14 was not necessary for the purposes of effecting the sale on the Darkhast of the appellants and accordingly, it vacated the notices. Against the said order of the Executing Court respondent ·14 filed First Appeal No. 668 of 1957 in the High Court of Bombay, and he also filed on June 5, 1958 Civil Suit No. 57 of 1968 in the Court of the Joint Judge, Senior Division at Poona for a recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,18.564/- alleged, to be due to him umf.er the two mort· gages dated June 27. 1949 and September 13, 1949.~.

c D. s. MOTE v. A. c. DATAR (Jaga11molza11 Reddy,/.) .'.129 H may be mentioned that while Suit No. 57 of 1958 was pending the property-the subject-matter of that suit-was put up for sale on the appellants' Darkhast and it was purchased by the appellants with t:he leave of the Court.

In view of this development respondent 14 impleaded the appellants in the said Suit No. 57 of 1958 as' the pur- chasers of the equity of redemption. The appellants resisted the snit ·on the ground that they had a prior charge in their favour aud the mortgage of respondent 14 was subject to that charge. It was al~o contended that s. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (herein- after referred to as 'the Act') regarding notice was not obligatqry in respect of the interest created in favour of respondent 14. The Trial Judge by his judgment dated Ju]Jy 21, 1959, while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent 14 for recovery of Rs. 2,18,564/- held that the appellants hacl a prior charge over the property and were bound by the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff-respondent 14 and 15 (de- lfendant 8 in the suit). It further held that the rights of a simple mortgagee are not "property in the hands of" the mortgagee who could not be protected by the proviso to s. 100 of the Act.

Against the decree of the Trial Judge, respondent 14 filed First Appeal No. 40 of 1960 in the High Court of Bombay. The·two First Appeals, one arising out of the Darkhast filed by the appellants and the other arising out of the suit filed by respondent 14 were heard together on November 12, 1962 .. The High 'Court of Bombay by its Judgment modified the decree of the Trial Judge holding that as the mortgage in favour of respondent was protected unde_r the proviso to s. 100 of the: Act it is free from the charge it1 favour of the appellan!s. It also gave priority to respondent 15 for its dues, though it had not filed any appeal.

Against this judgment artd decree two appeals were filed, one in respect of First Atioeal No. 40 of 1960 and the oth~r in respect of First Appeal No. 668 of 1957. It was contended before the High Court that whatever may be the position under s. 100 of the Act, respondents Motes would still be protected by s. 52 by the doctrilie of /is pr11de11s.

Over1111ing" a ph~li­ minmiy objection that this point was not taken in the Trial Cot.!rt, the High Court, after considering the admitted position, noticed that origi- nally there. was·only a money debt due to defendants 9-13 from Datars. The appellants had filed Suit No. 741 of 1938 and practically three. years thereafter at the time of passing of the decree, a charge by agree- mcllt was created on the properties of Darars.

Admittedlv. the pro- perties on which the charge was created were not the subject-matter <Jf the suit ,and no issue. was raised in that suit in respect of these pro-. ocrti~s. 1t was pointed out that for s. 52 to apply. two conditions have to be fulfilled. namely, ( l) the suit or the proceedings must not be collusive and must be pending; and (2) the right to immoveable pro- p~rty was directly and specifically in question in the suit. Unless both these conditions are satisfied. no protection can be claimed. The m~rc fact that n specific immoveable property becomes the subject-mat- ter of a decree subsequentlv by agreement of the parties will not justify a cbim for protection 'Under s. 52. If the chatgc has been created by fl975i]: Z s.r,.~

consent of the parties it is something extraneous to the suit and a~ordl- ingly no !is in fact exists in respect of that property nor can it be said that a Us had commenced at least from the date of the decree. There: is no commencement at 1111 so far as the /is is concerned which in that suit was a simple claim for money and nothing more. Apart from this, there was no Darkhast or execution application pending at the time when the simple mortgages in favour of the plaintiff were ereated in 1949. The High Court discussed several decisions in respect of the above conclusion and we are in agreement with the reasoning of the High Court.

Since before us this point was not seriously argued, we do not think that there is any need to deal with this aspect fn any detail. It may also be mentioned that the High Court, on the evidence, came to the conclusion that respondent 14 had no notice of the prior charge inasmuch as the search of the indices .did not disclose that tlfore was charge on the suit property.

An attempt was made to show that the respondent 14 had feigned ignorance of the decree in favour of tke appellants though his witness admitted. that he had taken search of the records of the Sub-Registrar's oflice before he took the two mortgages. It was also contended that the p11aintiff-respondent 14 had admitted that the mortgage Ext. 87 was registered fn the Sub- Registrar's Office on May 17, 1941, and is noted as No. 104-g_g in Book No. 1. Though this decree was entered in Index I, it was not entered in Index II. From the very fact that the decree was shown in Index I and having been so registered, fr is sought to be corrterrded· that the High Court had, by ignoring the above.ievidence, held that respondent 14 did not have notice. It may be mentW!rellli tl'mt the pro- perties which . are the subject-matter of the charge under the d~cree could only be shown under s. 21 of the Registration Act in Index IL Unfortunately, as we have said earlier, by inadvertence the property-· the subject-matter of the suit-was not shown in that Index (Index II)' .. c

A person who wishes to search the registers for. aniy prior sale, mort- gage or charge would necessarily inspect Index II, which under s. ·55(3)1 Of the Registration Act is required to contain such particulars men· tioned in s. 21 relating to ·every such document and memorandum · as ~he Inspector General from time to time directs iii that behalf. Under s. 21 description of property and. maps or plans have to be mentioned in all non-testamentary documents relating to immoveable property before they are accepted for registration, with further parti- culars as spedfied in sub-ss: (2) to ( 4) thereof. Under s. 55 (1) there are to be four Indices I to IV. Sub-section (2) provides that Index I shall contain the names and addresses of all persons execµting and of all persons claiming under every document entered or memo- randum filed in Book No. 1 and Index II shall contain such parti-· culars mentioned in s. 21 relating to every such document and memo- randum as the Inspector General may from time to time direct fn

that behalf, Under s. 51 (2) in Book 1 shall be entered. or filed alt documents or memoranda registered under ss. 17, 18 and 89 which relate to immoveable property, and are not wills. If the property which a person wants to purchase or which is being ·offered· to him as a mortgage or security for payment of any IJlOney is shown in Index II, D. s. MOTE. v. A, c. DATAR (Jaganmohan Reddy,/.)

23 l then he would have notice of such charge or mortgage and may wish ~o further probe by inspecting Index I and Book 1. Merely inspect- mg Book 1 or Index I will not benefit him because all he can know is that there is a decree that has been registered which may not be ~elpful. The High Court was. right in not accepting the contention of the appellants that respondent 14 had notice of the decree because if in fact he had taken the trouble of going to the Sub-Registrar's Office for inspection and search and to ascertain whether there was any

charge, mortgage or other encumberance on the property in respect of which he wanted to advance such a. large sum of Rs. 1;50,000f, he would not, as a man of prudence, have advanced the said amounts if he had in fact known.that there was a prior charge on that property. c

In fact th.e High Court o~rved that it was an admitted position that even on a careful inquiry the plaintiff (respondent 14) would not have known that the property (Kakakuva Mansion) was charged in favour of defendants 9 to 13 (the appellants herein) inasmuch as __ neither the property cards, nor the Municipal kecords, nor the indices contain- ed a reference to the charge on the suit property. The Exphination in s. 3 of the Act which provides for fixing a party with constructive notice in respect of registered transactions, contains a proviso to

Explanation I that in order to amount to constructive notice, it is necessary that ( 1 ) the instrument has been registered and its regis- tration completed in the manner required by the Registration Act and the Rules made thereunder, (2) the instrument has been duly· entered or filed in books kept under s. 51 of the Registration Act, and ( 3) the particulars regarding· the· transact.ion to which the instrument re- fates have been correctly entered in the indices kept under s. 55, of that Act. It further observed that though in some cases by legal fiction, constructive notice may be imputed to a party, in the case before it, it cannot be imputed to the plaintiff (respondent 14), since the third condition required for the purpose was not satisfied. We would, therefore. accept the finding of both the Courts that respondent 14 had no notice of the prior charge created by the decree. · The question which will arise for our consideration is whether the appellants by reason of the decree creating a charge on the sujt pro- perties have a priority over the subsequent simple mortgage created in favour of respondent 14. We need not go into other niceties, as to what would be the position where a sale deed is invalid for want of registration or whether a transaction intended to be a mortgage but not reduced to writing and registered will operate as a charge, because in this case the competition is between a charge created by a decree which was registered and a subsequent mortgage ~ithout notice of a prior charge. It is contended that the provisions contained in s. 100 of the Act that "save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge" means and implies that where there is a charge and where the property is sold and is in possession of the purchaser for consideration, no charge so created prior to the sale can be enforced against a propertv in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without n0tice of the charge. The words "save as

otherwise provided" would imply that a charge can be enforced even against a purchaser without notice where a law expressly so provides. It is further contended that a charge created by the terms of a decree is not covered by s. 100 of the Act inasmuch as it is neither a security on immoveable properliy created by act of parties or by opera- tion of law.

Several decisions have been referred to before us which, in our view, have no application, because a compromise decree not being the result of a decision by the Court but an acceptance by the Court of something to which the parties have agreed if it created a charge on an immoveable property, and was dully registered, as indeed it was in this case, amounts to the creation of a security by act of parties within the meaning of s. 100 of the· Act. In order to resolve the question before us it is necessary to analyse the provisions of s. 100 of the Act, the text ()f which is given below :-

"Where immoveable property of one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on

the property; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as ma1y be, apply to such charge. Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee on the trust-proper(y for expenses properly incurred in the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly pro· vided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall. be enforced against any property in the hands of a person

to whom such property has been transferred for considera- tion and without notice of the charge." Jt is apparent from the provisions of the above section that a charg~ does not amount to a mortgage though all the provisions which apply to a si '1ple mortgage contained in the precedine: provisions shall, so fo~· as .nay be, apply to such charge. While a charge can be created either by act of parties or operation of law, a mortgage can only be created by act of parties. A charge is thus a wider term as it in· cludes also a mortgage, in that ev1tt1y mortgage is a charge, but every charge is not a mortgage. The Legislature while defining a charge in s. 100 indicated specifically that it does not amount to a mortgage. It may be incongruous and in terms even appear to be an anti-thesis to say on the one hand that a charge does not amount to a mortgage and yet apply the provisions applicable to a simple mortgage to it as if it has been equated to a simple' mortgage. both in respect of the nature and efficacy of the security. This misconception had given rise to certain decisions where it was ·held that a charge created hy a decree was enforceable against a transferee for consideration without notice, because of the fact that a charge has been erroneously assumed to have created an interest in property reducing the full ownership to a limited ownership. The declaration that "all the provisions here- inbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as c

D. s. MOTB v. A. ~. DATAR (Jaganmohan R~ddy J.) .233 . may be, apply to such charge" does not have the effect of changing the nature of a charge to one of interest in property. '.'"

Order 34 r. 1.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure also· provides for the remedy of enforcing a charge under which all the provisions of 0.34 in so far as they are applicable to a simple mortgage would be applicable to a charge under s. 100 of the Act.

This rule was sub· stituted for the old r. 15 by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, which came into operation on the l st April, 1930. The old r. 15 of 0.34 was as follows :

"All the provisions contained in this Order a~ to the sale or redemption of mortgaged property shall, so far a; may be, apply to pl'Op~rty subject to a charge within the meaning of section 100 of the Trnnsfer of Prop:rty Act.

1882." The words "as to the sale or redemption of the mortgaged properly" which were in, the old rule· have bce11 omitted, und instcnd it is now provided in general terms that the provisions applying lo simpk mort- gages shall apply to charges.

A charge-holder like -a simple mort· ·gag::e has a rjght to bring the property charged to sulc or cari .;>nfdrce D . his charge against any portion of the propert~ charged. Wher; a

charge-holder is given possession of the property as ~1 charge-holder, ·he can remain in possession of it until the amount due to hin1 is satis- tied; but if the possession is not atiributable to the charge, he cannot insist on retaining possession until his dues are paid.

r The reason for the above provision in s. I 00 of the Act, r~aJ wit\! 0.34 r.15, is merely to declare that the rights and liabilities of a charge-holder are to- be that which a simple mortgagee has under the provisions of the Act in so far as they may he applicable. The words "~o far as miey be" indicate that provisions which :ipply to simple mortgage may not be applicable to the charge. It has been held that ss. 56, 67(2). 68{3), 73(4). 83(5) and 92(6) nr.: applicahk to charges.

On the other hand, s. 67 A has been held to be applicable to charges created by act of parties µnd not to charges creat.:d by operation o' law on the ground that the clause "in the absence of a contract t~ 1he contrary"' occurring in that section is an essential part of it and car.mot be given effect to in a sta.tutory charge.. If a charge carries with it a personal liability as iii the case of a seller's ·charge for price not paid. the charge-holder is entitled under 0.34 i·.6 ,)f the Code of Civil Procedure to a personal decre·~.

The Privy Council had observed th•1t in a suit for enforcem~nt of a charge under s. 100 of the Act read with 0.34 r.15 Code of Civil Procedure, a decree for sale, as in a suit for a momaµe. should have been passed : See Ram Raglrubir Si11gh La! v. U11it1•cl Refi11erie.1 ( 1). The several aspects of the application of the provisions of a simple mortgage have not been and need not be considered by us as they are not .relevant for our purpose.

Our object is mcrdy to illustrnt.:: the reason for a reference in s. I 00 to a simple mortgage. (I) [!933160 I. A. 183. [1975] 2 s.c.n. The ques,tion would then be : what is the purpose and intend- ment of 1929 Amendment adding the proviso to s. 100 of the Act? There may be several views as to why this amendment was effected, but certainly one of them is to get over the eiiect of certain decision~ of the Courtg which have herd that a charge was valid as against a subsequent purchaser of property without notice on the assumption that a. charge created an interest in property and since its effect is similar to a simpk mortgage ii: being first in point of time has a priority over a. subsequent sale to a purchaser of proper~y who has taken it with consideration and without notice. It is contended that even after the Amendment of 1929 since no .charge can be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge, the saving clause applies to a simple mortgage as well as to mortgages with possession inasmuch as in both cases property which could be transferred under s. 6 of the Act can be said to be transferred. In

other words, the saving clause is not confined only to an out and out sale. c On the other hand, the submissiC?n of the appellants is that the proviso to s. 100 applies only to cases of sale for consideration where the property is in possession of the purchaser. It is only in such a case where the purchaser has bought the property without notice of the charge that the charge cannot be enforced against him. It appears to us that if the intention of the Legislature was to make the proviso applicable even to a mortgage including a simple mortgage, there was no need for it to have used the words "in the hands ·of a person to whom such property has been" because if the proviso is read without those words the effect sought for would nonetheless ensue. The pro- viso read after the deletion of the words indicated by us

would read: "Save as otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against anv property transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge."

If mortgages were sought to be included, it would look somewhat incongruous because the words "transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge" in so far as we are ·able to ascertain have never been used in describing a mortgage whether it be a simple mort- gage or a mortgage with possession. This expression has alwaJys been understood to describe a sale, b~cause transfer of all the rights which the· transferor has can also be legally effected without consideration and voluntarily as in the case of a gfit. It is in anti- thesis of a trans- fer by way of gift that the expression "transferred for consider~tion" as indicating a sale has been used.

A donee of property takmg a property by way of gift even if he. does so witho~t notice of th~ cha:ge cannot in any case claim the benefit of the proviso. If w~at is bemg dealt with in the proviso i5 a sale which in the case of an immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100/' or upwards has .t~ be effected by a registered document. it is not necessary for the vahd1ty of such a sale . that possession should also have been given. Where a sale has beeµ c

D, s. MOTE v. A. c. DATAR (Jaganmolum Reddy, I.) 235' validly effected and possession has not been given, the purchaser has; always the right to enforce a sale deed and obtain possession of the property.

In order to ascertain the true import of the terminologiy used in s. 100 of the Act, it is necessary to state clearly· some of the basic concepts embodied in the Act which are beyond controversy. Section:

5 defines "transfer of property" as meaning "an act by which a living. person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself, or to himself and one or more other Jiving 2ersons'', and "to transfer property'' is to perform such act. Section 6 says that property of any kind may be transferred, except as otherwise provided by the Act or by any other law for the time being in force other than those mentioned specifically in clauses (a) to (i) which cannot be transferred:

Section 8 d·~a\s with the operation: of transfer and says that unless a different intention is expressed ot necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of pass- ing in the property, and in the legal incidents thereof. It then narrates all such incidents having regard to the land, debt, etc.. etc. Chapter·

III of the Act deals specifically with sales of immoveable . property,. the sale in s. 54 being defined as transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part·paid and part-promised. Mort-· gages are dealt with in Ch. IV where mortgage is defined in s. 58(a) as the transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced' by way of loan. Different kinds of mortgages are alsq specified in that section of which clause (b) states what a simple mor_tgage is,

namely, "where, without delivering possession of the mortgaged pro- perty, the mortgagor binds himself personally to pay the mortgage· money, and agrees, expressly or impliedly, that, in the event of his fai'ing to pay according to his contract, the mortgagee shall have a right to cause the mortgaged property to be sold and the proceeds of sale to be applied, so far as may be necessary, in payment of the- mort- gage-mon·~y, the transaction is called a simple mortgage and the l}lort- g.agee a simple mortgagee".

A charge on the other hand under s. 100 of the Act is neither a ><ile nor a mortgage because it creates no interest in or over a specific · immoveable property but is only a security for the payment of money .. Leases of immoveable properties are dealt with in Ch. V of the- Act, of which s. 105 . defines a lease as a transfer of a right to enjoy. such property, made for a certain time, express

or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money etc. etc. Chapter VI deals with exchanges of ownership in one pr9- pertv for another. It is provided bys. 118.that a transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in the manner pro. vided for the transfer of such property by sale, so that in that Eection the mutual transfer which is referred to is the transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of another and in relation thereto tha manner in which the exchange is to be completed is

specified ·as similar to the transfer o.f property as on a sale. In so specifying s. 118 of the Act equates the term "transfer of property" with the .term "transfer of ownership". Chapters VII and VIII deal with gifts and actionable claims which do not necessarily appertain to immove- able properties alone.

It will thus be seen that throughout the Act whenever a transfer ·of property is referred to without any qualification, it is to the trans- ier of all the interest in the property.

As already referred to, s. 8 ·says that "a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transfcre;: all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property". Section lO when it says "where property is transferred" refers to all the rights in the property. Section 11 makes it still more clear when it provides

that "where, on transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person" and -contrasts the transfer of property with the creation of an interest in 'the propertv.

Section 12. which refers to the property transferred, refers to the whole of the interest in the property. Section refers to a transfer of property and creation of an interest therein and brings out the distinction between tlie phrase 'transfer of property' and 'creation of interest in the

.property'; so <do ss. 14 and 15 Section 16 refers to the creation of an interest. Section 17 very obviousiy refers to the transfer of the whok of the property when it refers to the transfer of property. So also s. I 8. Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 33 are like ss. 11 and 13. Section 38 again clearly refers to the transfer of the whole of the interest in a property. So doss. 39, 40, 41. 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 53A. -Thus it is clear that the transfer of property refetred to in s. 100 of the Act is the transfer of the whole 'Property and not a mere interest in or over the property like a mort- gage, lease etc.

A careful scrutiny of the conspectus of the sections of the Act indi· ·cates clearlv that the Legislature has adopted certain phraseology to connote different concepts of transfer to which we have referred abov<:. Property is the most comprehensive of all terms il)asmuch as it is indi- cative and descriptive of every possible interest it can have. The terms 'transfer of property', 'transfer of an interest in property'. 'creation of an interest in. or over property', 'transfer of a right to enjoy property', 'transfer of ownership' have been associated in the context of different sections with sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease etc. etc. Tn the ca~e

t>f a sale, after the sale there is no interest left in the seller : in the case of a charge the transferor has a subsisting interest though limited to some extent bv the charge-holder's right to recover the monies due from the specific immoveable property. Jn a mortgage, the mortgagor has the equity of redemption of the mortgaee left in him.

Tn the case of a lease the lessor ljas the ri2ht of ownershln in the propertv cxc.:ot the ri2ht of en.ioyrnent which has been transferred to the lease under the agreement. A gift like a sale is transfer of all the ri1d1ts which a person can have in the pronertv with this difference, namelv. while the sale is for consideration, J?ift is voluntary and without consideration. A reference to the proviso to s. 100 of the Act would show that in .order to mak_c it applical?l~ it h~~ to be Hhown that (a) the property c

E1 c D. s. MOTE v. A, c. DATAR (Jaganmohan Reddy,/.) against which the charge is to be enforced must have been transferred. for consideration; (b) !he transferee has no notice of the charge; (c) . the property which is the subject-matter of the charge is in the hands of the person to whom such property has been transferred. lt is, there-. fore, necessary to ascertain as to what is meant by the expression "pro·· perty in the hands of a person to whom such property has been trans-· ferred".

There is no need and indeed it would be an incorrect ap-· proach to adopt a strained construction or to. indulge in unnecessary. exercise in semantics to make the proviso applicable to a simple mort- gage by holding that the right a mortgage gets under a mortgage. can. also be said to be in the hands of the mortgagee: In Berwick & Co. v .. Price,( 1) Joyce, J., began his judgment by saying: "It is well settled that a purchaser (in which term I must be understood to include a. mortgagee or a transferee of a mortgage) …… ". From this single passage, Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.) Vol. 14, p. 539, Foot Note (p) treats the case as an authority for the expression 'purchaser for value' as including a mortgagee. Berwick's case( I) had referred! · to the Conveyancing Act, 1882 (188 l) 44. and 45 Viet. Ch. 41, which by s. 2 (viii) defines a "purchaser", unless a contrary intention appears, to include a lessee, or mortgagee, and an intending purchaser, lessee,. or _mortgagee, or other person, who, "for valuable consideration, takes. or deals for any property; and purchase, unless a contrary intention ap-· pears, has a meaning corresponding with that of purchaser; but sale· means only a sale properly so called". Similarly, s. 205 (1) (xxi) of the Law of Property Act, 1925 which brought order from chaos creat- ed by forms of action, the distinction between legal and equitable reme-· dies and the different courts which conferred the respective remedies, defined 'purchaser' to· .mean "a purchaser in good ·faith for valuable consideration and includ~s a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for· valuable consideration acquires an interest in property".

Where the Act has intended to convey that the person who has an absolute title,. it has used the word buyer. though in the marginal note to s. 56 the word 'purchaser' has been used. This merely shows that the legislature has used the word 'purchaser' as synonymous with 'buyer' and as not 11 · including a mortgagee or mortgagor or a lessee or lessor as in the English Act.

Before the Act came into force in 1882, wherever any such expression came up for co11sideration, in the absence of any speci- fic definition under the Indian Statute, the meaning assigned in the· English law seems sometimes to have been applied in a general way. See Bazayet Hossein v. Dooli Chand(2) where it was held that .the creditor of a deceased Mohammedan cannot follow his estate into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value, to whom it has been alienated · by the heir-at.-law, whether the alienation pas been made by 8jbsolutc sale or by mortgage. Though it may appear at first flush that a pur- chaser for value would include a mortgagee, actually what was held was that a creditor cannot follow a property alienated by hcfo-at-law into the hands of an alienee whether the alienation is by way of. an absolute sale or bv mortgage. The cmphasi~ is on alienation of the· interest in immoveable property and not on the word 'purchaser'. (I) [1905) Ch. D. 639,

(2) I. L. R.4Cal .402(P.C.~} The dangers inherent in relying on English cases rendered on the law of property are many, and we should be chary in allowing a parti- cular technical meaning acquired by a word in that country to govern the interpretation of our Acts which have used that word in different conrtotations. The usage of any term conveying a particular meaning .in the English law and which subsequently has been incorporated in the definition· of a statute as in the case of the two statutes referred to above, cannot on that hypothesis be imported as if that word has the same meaning under the Indian law, when, as we have pointed oUt, our statute adopts different connotations.

Nor would there be any justification to refer to the principles developed by the Chancellor's Court of Equity in England or the notion that equity follows the law, in their application to our law, because that would lead onfy to confu• ·sion. In our view, to interpret our statutory laws on the basis of the statutory provisions of England which were enacted to deal with the peculiarities of their laws is to show subservience to that law or to the legislaturn in that country in preference to ours, though the legislative sovereignty in India even in the British days did not make our laws subordinate to the English laws. It is much more so now long after the· independence and the Constitution. This Court cannot accept such an approach, as is suggested.

We may by way of illustration refer to section 56 of the Act. It ·states : "If the owner of two or more properties mortgages them to one person and then sells one or more of the properties to another ~rso~, the buyer is, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to have the mortgage-debt satisfied out of the property or properties not sold to him, so far as the same will extend, but not so as to prejudice the rights of the mortgagee or persons claiming under him or of any other person who has for consideration acquired an interest in any of che properties". A careful analysis of the above section would show that the Legislature has at one pl~ce used several words which we have underlined to convey different concepts. The words owner, pur- chaser, buyer, sale have been used for connoting an absolute transfer of all the rights vcstcc1 in an owner; the words mortgage, mortgagor and mortgagee arc used to conqote a transfer of an interest in property. That apart, even a person who has acquired an interest in property, who may be like a mortgagt~c, is said to acquire "a11 interest in property for considemtion'', which expression is certainly used to connote only a limited interest.

This clearly indicates that the Legislature bas usect diffcrcnt terminology for connoting different concepts and would have in the proviso, if it intcn~ed to apply it to mortgages, used the appropriate language and expression.

. Another indication ~rom which the meaning, which we have as- cnbcd. can be gathered 1s the use of the expression "in the hands of". !hi~ c~pression, and ind~ed the entire phraseology of the saving clause, is s1gmficant and lends itself to the construction that a charge-holder cannot c~f~~~c his charge against any property in a case where that pr0perty 1s

Ill the ~ands .of a person to whom such property has been trans~errcd ~or .cons1derat1on and without notice of the charge." What J,~cn is the s11m.1fican~e of the words "in the hands of" ? Do thev mean m the possession of' or "under the control of" ? If this is so, -then. a t

i c D. s. MOTE v. A. c. DATAR (Jaganmolzan Reddy, 1.) simple mortg~ge of a property is not covered by the proviso, as the pro- perty the subject of such a mortgage is not in the possession or control of the mortgagee, or do these words mean that whatever interest in pro- perty is created that interest can be said to be in the hands of a person in whose favour that interest has been created. ln Arumiili Su;yya v. Pinisetti Venkataramanamma and Ors.(1) HorwilJ, J., observed at p. 704 : "If the appellant. is tr.~ated as a simple mor\gagee, he cannot by any stre.tch of the imagination be considered to have the property in his hands." The High Court. fo the judgment in appeal has disagreed with Horwill, J.'s view on the ground that if the words imply physical possession, then possession of an agent or tenant will not be included. According to the High Court the words "in the hands of" only mean the holding of the title and nothing else.

c The expression "in the hands of" appears to us to be a figurative expression .intended to convey that a person has sufficient control over the subject-matter to which in the context the phrase is applied so as to enable that person to do whatever he can do with it as the nature of that subject-matter would permit.

See Edwardes' Menu Company Limited v, Chud/eigh.(2) 'f!te judgment of Kekewich, J., was confirmed · by the. Court of Appeal Lindley, M. R., Chitty and Vaughan Williams, L. JJ., which is reported in the same Volume at p. 64. The actual control as compared to the possibility of obtaining control seems to be implied in the term. The proverb "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", would, in our view, appropriately convey the meaning of the phrase.

No doubt, "in the hands of" may be a multi-faceted phrase connoting many meanings, of which the meaning applicable in the con- text in which it is used, is the most appropriate. In the context of the saving clause, the inappropriateness of its applicability to a simple mortp:age or in the setting of the entire Phraseology its non-appjlication to other mortgages seems to us to be clear and evident.

In the context in which the phrase "in the hands of" has been used we have no doubt that it was intended to convey and does convey that the buyer as a transferee for consideration without notice of the charge was in possession, including constructive possession through a tenant who has attorncd to .him and which for all intents and purposes. · as far as transfer is concerned. has conveyed to him a\l the right. title and interest which the vendor had in the property including the posses- sion. Before we part with this aspect, it is necessary to point out that Mulla's Indian Registration Act, 8th Edn., at p. 195, states on !he basis of the decision in Chhagan/al v. Ch1111i/al( 3 ) that "under section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. as amended bv Act 20 of 1929 a mortage has priority over a previous charge of which the mortgagee had no notice."

This decision is one rend~red under 3. 48 of the Indian Registration Act and not under ~· 100 ot the Act though the arguments advanced thereunder were noticed (sec pp. I 91-192). It was in fact contended that s. 50 of the A!llendmcnt. A.ct of 1929 by which the proviso was added had retrospective effec,t s1m1lar t~ s. 63. —–···- ·——-.

(l) A. T. R. 1940 Mad. 701. (3) A. J. R. 1934 Bom. 189. (2) 14 T. LR. 47. of the Amendment Ac:t, but it was repelled. Tyabji, J., at p. 192, said: ,A ''We cannot accordingly, accept the argument that we must decide this case in accordanc1~ with the amended s. 100.''

If the proviso to s. 100 of the Act does not apply to mortgages, then what is the position of a charge-holder vis-a-vis the subsequeat mortgagee without notice of the charge. A charge not being a transfer or a transfer of interest in property none-the-less creates a form of llJ

security in respect of immoveable property. So far as mortgage is concerned, it being a transfer of. interest in ,property the mort&agee has always a security in the property itself. Whether the mortgage is with possession or a simple mortgage, the interest in the property enures to the mortgagee so that any subsequent mortgage or sale always pre- serves the rights of the mortgagee whether the subsequent dealings in the property are with or without notice. The obvious reason for this is that in a mortgage there is always an equity of redemption vested in the owner so that the subseq"uent mortgagees or transferees will have, if they are not careful and cautious in examining ,the title before enter- ing into a lransaction, only the interest which the owner has at the time Qf the transaction.

In so far as compc:ting mortgagees are concerned, s. 48 of the Act gives priority to the first in point of time in whose favour transfer of an inu:rest in respi:ct of the same immovable property is created, if the interest which he has taken and the interest acquired subsequently by other persons cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent to- gether. This section speaks of a person who purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same immoveable pro· perty, and since charge is not a transfer of an interest in or over the immoveable property he gets no security, as against mortgagees of the same property unless he can show that the subsequent mortgagee or mortgagees had notice of the existence of his prior charge. A reference to S, 48 of the Indian Registration Act and s. 27 (b) of the Specific Relief Act would, however, be necessary to spell out the implications ol' the competing priorities between a charge and a mortgage.

Before we examine these provisions it is necessary to note that under s. 54 of the Act, it is only a transfer of interest in the tangible immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100/ – and upwards or of a reversion or other intangible thing that requires the transaction to be effected by a registered instrument.

But 'in the case of a tangible immoveable property of the value of less than Rs. 100 /- a registered instrument is not compulsory- but only optional. A transfer of such property can be effected either by registered instrument or by delivery of the property, i.e., when the seller places the buyer or such person as he directs in possession of the property.

Where an oral sale of property· of the value of less than Rs. 100/ – takes place accompanied or followed by possession a question may arise as to what would be the effect of a sale of the same property effected by a subsequent re•istered document ? There was a conflict of decisions under , the old Registration Ads, viz., under Act 20 of 1866, Act 8 of 1871 and Act 3 of 1877, and the words "unless where the agreement or declara- tion bas been accomp1anied or followed, by delivery of possession" c

D. s. MOTE v. A. c. DATAR (Jaganmohan Reddy, l.) were first added by Act 8 of 1871 to give effect to the preponderant view that' where possession was given under the oral agreement the registered document did not take effect against an oral agreement. The rationale underlying these cases was, as explained by Muttusami Ayyar, J., in Kannan v. Krishnan(') is, that the protection given to oral agree- ment accompanied with or followed by delivery of possession is equi- valent to registration. The effect of registration, it may be said, is to invest the subsequent purchaser or any person who takes an interest in that property with notice. If notice of a prior transaction whether by delivery of possession or by registration is the basis Of conferment of priority, then even in the case of a transaction which did riot effect a transfer by delivery of possession but there were rights created in favour of the person by an oral or written agreement, then a person taking an interest in that property Or: who purchases that propeny with notice of the prior charge would take that property subject to the prior rights of which he had notice. That is why s. 53A of the Act and the amendment in s. · 48 of the Registration Act recognise certain equities even where the transaction as required by law is not entered into by a registered instrument and woufd not, but for these provisions, amount to effecting a transfer of an interest or ownership in a specific immove- able property.

Section 48 of the Registration Act, 190~, as it now emerges after the amendment Act 21 of 1929, gives a priority to an oral agreement or declaration relatin)!; to a }lloveable or immoveable property where the agreement or declaration has been . accompanied or followed by delivery of possession and -the same constitutes a valid transfer under . · any law for the time being in force. The ordinary rul.e-of s. 48 of the Registration Act is that non-testamentary documents -duly registered under the Act relating to any property whether moyeable or immove- able shalJ take effect against an oral agreement or <!edaration 'relating to such propeny subject to the exception stated above. In.Cbhagan- lal's case (supra) the decision was concerned mainly with thequestion whether a charge can be an oral charge, or it must, like a mongage, be created only by a registered instrument.

That was a case of an oral charge competinll: to have a. priority over a mongage. 'fYabji, J., after referring to s. 48 of the Registration ~ct said at p. 191 : "As there has been no delivery of possession in the pre-

sent case, the exception may, for the present purposes, be disregarded." This exception would, however, still leave a case where an interest in imnl.oveable property is created without a registered instrument and

without delivery of possession and that may be the case of a mnrtgage by deposit of title, deeds. as defined in s. 58 of the Act. For this pur- pose, the proviso to s. 48 of the Registration Act makes an exception in the case of mortgage by deposit of title deeds which neither requires delivery of possession nor cqnstitutes notice of such a mongage. This section does not !!ive any indication as to what would be the position where a person taking a subsequent registered document had notice of an oral or written agreement in respect .of an immoveable

property (!) I. L. R. (1890] 13 Mad. 324, 330 . . 17-L251Sup.CJ/75 which is not accompanied or followed by delivery of possession. Will the right created under an oral or written agreement take a priority over the interest created by a registered document ? The answer appears to be in the affirmative, because, as we have stated earlier, the reason for a transaction relating to immovable property being effected by a registered document is to impute notice to all those w!io subsequently take an interest in that property and the same protection was afforded to transactions, which though not effected by registered instruments, nonetheless were accompanied or followed by delivery of possession. Any actual notice of a transaction effected by an oral or written agree- ment in respect of specific immoveable property though not accom- panied or followed by delivery of possession should logically be ac- corded the same protection as against a subsequent transferee who takes it with notice.

Reference to s. 27 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 ( corre&- ponding to s. 19 (b) of the new Specific Relief Act, 1963) would fur- nish the answer. The old Act had provided certain illustrations, but the new Act has deleted them. Section 27 (b) of the old Act is in the following terms :

c "27. Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, speci- fie performance of a contract may be enforced against- (a) x x x x (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for

value who has paid his money in good faith and with- out notice of the original contract." The illustrations given in respect of clause (b) of s. 27 of the old Specific Relief Act are all cases of sale or out and out transfer of land. It is apparent from this ~lause that even a subsequent transfer is subject to a contract under which a right to obtain a transfer of specific property has been created. If a subsequent purchaser t'llkcs the risk of not ensuring himself of any prior rights in respect of the property to be purchased by him, he cannot be said not to have acted in good faith. But there may be instances where he has notice or but for his carelessness would have }13d notice of the prior charge and nonetheless has obt'llined a transfer, such as where the charge- holder is in possession of that property, or where the charge is regis- tered but no inspection is taken of the Register of Charges, mortgages and transfers. If he has such a notice either by registration or by property being in the possession of the person who has dealt with it first or otherwise, then even the fact that he has a registered document and the right creoated in the property is only by a simple contract does not avail him. In t]1e case to which the Specific Relief Act did not apply, Mitter, J., in Nemai Charan v. Kokil Bag(I) observed at pp. 537-538 :

"It appears to us, that if we adopt the principle that no enquity (that is, equity arising from notice) is to be consi- (1) [1881] I. L. R. 6 Cal. 534. D. S. MOTi! v. A. C. DATAR. (Beg, J,)

dered where an oral agreement to alienate is not followed by possession, the 27th section of the Specific Relief Act, as illustrated, would be rendered a deed letter wherever it applies, when competition arises between an oral agreement to alienate unaccompanied by ~ion, aruf an alienation

by registered deed with notice of the previous agreement; but we are not compelled to adopt this conclusion." . The doctrine of notice, even apart from the statutory provisions, is firmly embedded in the jurisprudence of this country as part. of the equitable principles which Courts administer in conformity with the maxim "justice, equity and good conscience". On this approach the conclusion would bo the same as if the proviso to s; 100 of the Act was applicable to mortgages also, but it is no answer to say that merely because the ultimate result is the same, we should read the language of s. 100 of the Act ignoring the purpose for which the amendment was made, or given to an 'interpretation which is totally at variance with the tenor of the entire Act in order that it may conform with D · the ultimate result, which in any case has been reached, even if it was by a different road.

The result of a close examination of the several aspects of the · question posed before us leads us to the conclusion that a subsequent. mortgiigee With nOticc of a prior charge takes tho mortgage, subject to · the charge.

But as in this case the finding is that the· respondent did not have notice of the apJiellants' clmrge, the appeals Will have to be. dismissed, and are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

BEG, J.-The two appeals before us, by certification of the case under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, arise in the cir- cumstances detailed below. A set of defendants (Nos. 1 to 7) of Original Suit No. 57 of 195& (hereinafter referred to as "The Datars"), which is now before us in appeal No. 18&3 of 1967, had become indebted to a number of creditors. One set of ~

creditots, Defendants Nos. 9 to 13 (hereinafter refer· red to as "Motes") of this suit hakl filed the suit No. 741 of 1938 'for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- with interest due to them from ihe Datars under a simple loan. On 31-3-1941, the Motes had obtain- ed a compromise ,decree in suit No. 741 of 1938 ·by which three sets of properties. of Datars were sought to be charged. Two of these SUPREME COURl' REPORTS

properties were in Poona, one in Shukrawar Peth and the other in !Judhwar Peth, whereas the third property was in Kalyan. After a copy of the compromise decree, showing a charge on all three properties, was dulJY presented before the ·Sub-Registrar for

registration, on 13-5-1941, the document was noted at serial No. 1048-B in Book No. l kept by the Registrar, and a Certificate complying with the provi- sions of Section 60, s'llb.s(2) of the Indian Registration Act was

issued by the Sub-Regisirar. But, presumably due to the negligence of the office of the Sub-Registrar, only the charge on the Shukrawar Peth property was specifically recorded as required by law in the regis- ters mentioned in Section 51 and indices mentioned in-Section 55 of the Rei~stration Act.

The appellants, Motes, then got the Shukrawar Peth property and the small property in Kalyan sold in execution of the compr-0mise decree. But, as the amount realised by the sale of these properties was not . enough to satisfy their claim, the appellants, Motes, filed an

execution application Darkhast No. 31 of 1952 in the Court of a Civil Judge at Poona for the recovery of Rs. 1,57,164/-. The claim of the plaintiff-respondent No. 14 before us (herein- iµter called "Oswal") had, meanwhile, come into existence by reason of two duly executed simple mortgages, dated 27-649 and 13-9-49, on the strength <1f which (he Original suit No. 57 of 1958, before us in appeal No. 1883 of 1967, for the recoveI]j of Rs. 2,18,564/- by enforci11g the two simple mortgages, was filed.

Oswal claiined that he had no knowledge of the alleged prior charge of the Motes. The Budhwar Peth property was also sold in proceedings to execute the compromise decre.e started . by the appellants, Motes, by Darkhast . No. 31 of 1952 and purchased by Motes themselves. The Execu- · tion Court; in proceedings under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, had dismissed the objection of the plaintiff-respondent. Against this dismissal an appeal was filed in the High Court \;Vhich allowed it. Hence, the Motes filed appeal No. 1882.of 1967 in this Court against this dismissal by the c:ommon judgment of the High Court deciding the two appeals before it.

The Trial Court dismissed the sult No. 57 of 1958 bwught by Oswal. It held that, although, Oswal had· r.o actual or constructive notice of the charge in favour of the appellants, yet, the charge had priority over the subsequent mortgages and could be enforced against Oswa!, the plaintiff-respondent, inasmuch as a simple mortgage, with- out possess.ion, did not give the mortgagee a right to protection given by the proviso to Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act. (here- inafter :referred to as "the Act") against enforcement of a charge upon ''any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge". The T1ial Court held that the rights of a simple mortgagee are not "property in the hands''' of the mortgagee who could, therefore, not be protected by the proviso to Section 100 of the Act. On appeal, the HirJi Court of Bombay reversed the decree of the Trial Coilrt and held the subsequent si.Jnple mortgages to be protected by the proviso. c

.F c P. S. MOTE V, A. C. PATAR (Beg, J.) The High Court had also,· in modification of the decree of the Trial Court, directed payment m the dues of the Maharashtra Bank- defendant No. 8, under the provisions of order 34, Rule 4, Civil Pro- cedure Code. The principal question which arises in the two appeals now Defore us is : Does the protection given by the proviso to Section 100 of the Act against the enforcement of a charge extend to a simple mortgagee as a transferee for consideration without notice of the

charge? Section 100 of the Act reads as follow~ : "Where immovable property of . one person is by act of parties or operation of law made security for. the payment of money to another, and the transaction does not amount to a mortgage, the latter person is said to have a charge on the pr-operty; and all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge.

Nothing in this section applies to the charge of a trustee . on the trust-property for expenses properly incurred in· the execution of his trust, and, save as otherwise expressly pro- vided by any law for the time being in force, no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration

and without notice of the charge". One of the questions raised before us whether Section 100 of the Act has any application to a charge created by the terms of a decree. It was contended that such a charge has a binding force independently of the provisions of Section 100 of the Act. In support of this sub- mission several authorities were cited :

(1) Seth Ghasiram Seth Dalchand Pal/iwal v. Mt. Kundanbai w,/o fianteshWrn .,Shukul & Ors.( 1) (2) V. S. V. Thangavelu Mudaliar v. G. Thirumalswami Muda/iar & Anr.;(~) (3) Seth Radhe Lal v .. Ladli Parshad;( 3 )

( 4) Jata Bhusan Chatterjee v. Smt. Krishna Bhamini Debi & Anr.;(4) (5) Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Srinivasa Naicker Ors.(G) (6) Sri Rajah Mommadevara Nagannu Naidu Bahadur Jamindar Garu (died) & Ors. v. Sri Rao Janar-

dhana Krishna Rangarao Bahadur Jamindar Gam & Ors.(4) (7) Dhirendra Nath Sen & Ors. v. Santa Shila Devi & Ors.(1) (I) Alli. 1940 Nag. 163. · (3) AlR 1957 Pb. 92. (5) AIR 1958 Mad. 23.

{7) AIR 1968 Cal. 336. (2) AIR 1956 Mad. 67· (4) AIR 1957 Cal. 2J4. (6) AIR 1959 f.P 622 (FB). None of these is a case in which there was a compromise decree. They W{:re cases decided by an application of the principles of Res judicata which bind parties to a decree and those who derive their rights alJ.d interests from such parties. It, h'as been held by this Court in Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao & Ors. v. Va!!uri .Tagennadha Rao & Ors.(') with regard to a compromise dccr~c (at page 322) : · "The compronfri;e; decree was not a decision by the C..ourt. It was the acceptance by the Court of something to which

the parties had agreed. It 'has been sai9 that a compromis·: decree merely sets the seal of the court on the agreement of the parties. The court did not decide anything. Nor can it be said that a decision of the court was implicit in it. Only a decision by the Court could be res judicata, whether sta- tutory under s. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or con- structive as a matter of public policy dn which the entire doctrine .rests".

fa several of the cases mentioned above the question arose whe- ther the terms of the decree were. sufficient to confer the rights upon the parties or their 'representatives in interest to execute the .decree to satisfy the claim or a separate unit was needed. Tfiat question has not been raised before us.

We are concerned here with a· charge created by the tenns of an agreement between the parties wlµch was embodied in the compromise decree. This agreement satisfies the requirements of Sec. 100 of the Act inasmuch as it is a charge created by the a.ct of parties. It is immaterial that the charge was subsequent- ly incorporated in a decree>.

We also find that no contention was advanced either in the Trial Court or in the High Court that a charge under the terms embodied in the compromise decree operates or binds outside the conditions laid down by Sec. 100 of the Act for enforcing clrarges in general. I am not impressed by the argument.

I hold that a charge was created by the terms of the agreement embodied in the consent decree, which was actually registered even though, unfortunately for the: charge holders, the provisions of Section 51 of the Registration .A.ct were not fully complied with in keeping a record of the charge.. That charge against Budhwar Peth property wou!d be enforceable if the plaintiff-respondent is not EI'otected by the terms of the proviso after its amendment by the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act XX of 1929. If the rights of a simple mortgagee. who is not ill ~ion of the mortgaged property, are not protected by the proviso at all, iliere is no doubt that the first part of Section 100 will confer upon too charge-holder the same rights as a prior simple mortgagee has against a subsequent simple mortgagee even

though the charge does not "amount to a mortgage" Before proceeding further I will deal with a question raised before the Trial Court, the High Court, and, again, before us, about the degree of diligence to be proved by a party setting up want of notice of a charge as a bona fide transferee for consideration.

Section 3 of the Act l:rys down : (I) [1964] 2 SCR 310, 322. c c D. S. MOTE V, A. C. DATAR (BeR, J.) " 'a person i8 said to .have notice' of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but. for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or

gross negligence, he would have known it. f.wlanation I. Where any transaction relating to immo- vable property is required by law to be and has been affected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such pro- perty oi any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from

the date of registration or, where the pr~rty is not all situat- ed fa one sub-district, or where the registered instrument has been registered under sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, from the earliest date on

which any memorandum of such registered · instrument has been .filed by any Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district any part of the property which is iieing acquired, or of the pro- perty· wherein a 5hare or .interest is being acquired, is situat- ed;

Provided that- ( 1) the instrun1ent nas been registered and its regis- tration completed in the manner prescribed by the.Indian Registration Act, 1908, and the rules made thereunder,

(2) the instrument (or memorandum) has been duly entered or filled, aS the case may be, in books kept under section 51 of that Act, aitd ( 3) the particulars regarding the transaction to which

the instrument relates have been correctly entered in the indexes kept under section 55 of that Act. Explanation II.-Any person acquiring any immow- ble property or any share of interest in any such ·pro·

perty shall be deemed to have notire of the tlUe, if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual poss~s­ . sion thereof. Explanation III.-A person shall be deemed to have

notice of any fact if his agent acquires notice thereof whilst acting. on his behalf in the course of business to which that fact is material : Provided tbat, if the agent fraudulently conceals the

fact, the principal shall not be charged with notice thereof as against' any person who was a party to or otherwise cognizant 'of the fraudn. · It is no body's case that there was any wilful abstention from enquiry by Oswal whose agent Bhikam Dass deposed :

"the search in Sub-Registrar's office was taken by me. I searched under No. 1 and 2 of property card. · I did not see ·the register in which the decretal charge was noted.. The SUPREME COllR1' REPORTS

transactions in dispute were settled through me. I gave in· forination to plaintiff". Anant Sitaram Joshi, tlte Clerk of the Sub-Registrnr's office, stated . that, although the compromise decree was mentioned in Index No. 1, no entry about it was made in Index No. 2. Even in Index No. I. it was not mentioned that the Budhwar Peth property was subject to a charge. He stated that it was not mentioned in Index No. 2 because the appropriate·orders were wanting although .it was property which should have been entered in the property cards as it bprc CTS Nos. Hence, it is clear that an examination of the relev.ant property index No. 2 could not have disclosed the existence of the charge on Budhwar Petti property. A reasonably prudent person could not be expected to suspect that the :misleading entries were incorrect, and, from a mere referen.ce to a decree, imagine that property not shown a~

.:barged. at all may also be included, and, therefore, attempt to find out all the particu\lars given in the decree itself, which should have been given in Index No. II. Section 55, sub. s.(3) of t~e Registrn- tion Act, l!l(Ys down : "Index No. II shall contain such particulars mentioned in Section 2;1 relating to every such document and memo- randum as the Inspector General frQm time· to time directs in that behalf".

On the evidence on record, the Trial Court ·came to the conclusion ''that only the property at Shukrawar Peth, Poona city, was mention- ed in the various official records maintained by the Sub-Registrar and City Survey Officer as affected by the charge, though property in

Budhwar Peth. which was also included therein, was not at all refer- red to therein", The High Court affirmed this finding and held : "that from inspection of the re.cords it could not have

been possible for any one to find out if the suit property was charged and the plaintiff, therefore, could not be fixed. with notice, either actual or constructive, of the above decretal charge in favour of defendants Nos. 9 to 13".

After having. been taken through the evidence mentioned above, I see no reason to differ from the. views taken by the Trial Court and the High Court which preclude the existence of "gross negligence" on the part of the plaintiff. who had made such attempts as could be expeoted of a reasonable and prudent individual to find out whether the property to be mortgaged was subject to a previous charge. Th~ failure of the plaintiff to learn of the prior charge on the Budhwar Peth property could be ascribed to the negligence of the Sub-Regis- trar concerned for which the plaintiff Oswal could not b~ made to suffer.

Coming back to the principal question indicated above, which was most strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants, relating to the interpretation of th1~ proviso. to Section 100 of the Act, I think that the correot meaning of this provision will emerge by determining what its object .is ~ : firstly, considering the language employed in the context of other sections of the Act defining the . concepts involved; and,

secondly, .if there is any uncertainty left, by glancing at some legal c -1 i ' c D. S. MOTE V, ·A. C. DATAR (Beg, J.) 24 9 history so as to appreciate what the provisions could be aimed at

achieving. I have set out above the requirements of notice, both actual and constructive, found in Section 3 of the Act. So far as constructive notice is concerned, it is evident that the three Explanations lay down what is deemed to be notice under each of the three sets of circurii.- stances dealt with separately by each Explanation. There is a presump- tion against redundence or meaningless overlapping of statutory pro- visions.

Explanation I, within which the_ case of the plaintiff Oswal was sought to be brought by Motes, deals with a very different set of circumstances, and, apparently, dispenses with circumstances bringing in Explanation II which makes it clear that a person acquiring any share · of interest in immovable property will be "deemed to have notice of the title, if a111y of any person who is in actual possession thereon". In other words, Explanation II constitutes an independent category of a deemed or constructive notice of entitleme.nt of the per- son shown to be in possession. The significance of this provision is that it shows that, where actual possession was to constitute notice of entitlement, it is clearly and specifically dealt with in Section 3 of the Act. It ind~cates that reference to the factum of possession is made in the Act itself where this constitutes a part of a set of facts which has to be proved for establishing a right or liability.

The High Court had correctly held the view, in accordance with what was laid down by this Court in Ahmed G. H. Ariff & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta,(') that "property" is "the most comprehensive of all the terms which can be used, inasmuch as it is in'dicative and descriptive of every possible interest which the party can have".

Its ampliWde as well as . what is excluded from its defi- nition are indicated by Section 6 of the Act. Section 58 of the Act defines a mortgage as ''the transfer of an interest in specific immov- able property for the purpose of securing the payment of

money advanced or to be advanced." TheFe can be little doubt that a simple mortgage is a transfer of property within the meaning of Sec- tion 5 of the Act. If a simple mortgage is a "transfer of property", as I think it is, the mortgagee's rights must vest in someone. In the context of the provisions set out above, it seems that a prior charge of which a

transferee for consideration has notice becomes enforceable, by reason of Section 100 of the Act, against the person in whom a transferee's rights vest. · The right vested in a person by virtue of a transfer for consideration is nothing more nor less than "property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for considera- tion".

The expression "in the hands of' could not be confined to tangible property which is actually in . die physical possession of the transferee. It is incontrovertible that the term "property" defined in Section 6 of the Act includes both tangible and intangible property. It extends to rights and interests in property too.

When these vest in somebody they are property "in the hands of' that person. (I) (1970) 2 SCR 19. SUPl\lSME COURT REPORTS [ 1975] 2 s.c.R. Thi: word. "hand" has acquired a number of extended meanings in the English language. It denotes power over or capacity to do or skill in doing various things.

Its derivative "handle" may be an objeet one can physically grasp with one's hand, but "to handle" denotes capacity for management or control. The word "hand" is used iii conjunction with "at" and "on" and "to" and "in". The various meanings of "~h hand" given in Webster's Third New. Inter- nationol Dictionary (.p. 1026) are: ( 1) In one's possession (t.g. to have eoough money in hand); (2) In control (e.g. to keep the child- ren in hand by a system of rewards and puniShments) ; ( 3) At one's disposal (e.g. to have 'a large property in hand becau5e of one's posi- tion); ( 4) To spare (e.g. to have plenty of time in hand); (5) In preparation (e.g. a new play in hand); (6) Under consideration (e.s. matter in hand); (7) Under effective control or management (e.g. business in hand).

c Thus; we see that to have possession of an object is only one of the several Dictionary meanings 'but not the only meaning of the expres- sion ~'in hand"". Moreover, the concept of possession in legal termi-

nology is so well known that, whenever it is intended to convey what it signifies, lawyers and draftsmen do not hesitate to use the word . possession just as we find it used in Section 3, Explanation Il, relat- ing to deemed "notice''. It seems that, in the proviso to Section 100 of the Act, the legislature d::liberately employed the concept of "pro- perty in hand", in contra-distinction with "property in the possession of" a transferee, &o as to include cases where a person has a right, which is intangible propertiy, vested in him.

The right of a simple mortgagee may be capable of being spoken of as "possessed" by the mortgagee. But, since it is an intangible right, even )he word possession, when used in eon junction with mort- gagee's rights, would not denote an actual physical handling of the right which is intangible.

The right may be evidenced by a document kept in the vaults of a. bank or in an alm.irah in a private home, but, the right itself is inc<>rporeal. It is something distinct from the c19Cu- ment which evidences it. It is incapable of being "handled" physi· cally.

The right could more. appropriately be spoken of as either "vestecj in the transferee", or, as property "ill the hands of the trans- feree'.'.. The object of employing this termi11ology in proviso to Sec- tion 100 of the Act seems to be to include such rights as those of a simple mortgagee.

I, therefore, think that the Bombay High Court was correct in adopting the view that the plaintiff-respondent Oswal, as a simple mortgagee, was not outside the protection conferred by the proviso to Section 100 because he was both a bonafide transferee for conskforation with simple mortgagee rights "in hand", as well as a person who had no notice, actual or constructive, of the prior charge of the Motes for reasons already mentioned above,

. The. only aut~ority which learned Counsel for the appellants could cite agamst the view adopted by the Bombay High Court was a stray . D. S. MOTE V. A. C. DATAR (Beg, /,) remark in Arumilli. Surayya v.

Pinisetti Venkataamanamma Ors.,(') where it was observed by Horwill, J. : "If the appellant is treated as a simple mortgagee, he can- . not by auy stretch of the imagination be considered to have the property in his hands".

The High Court had considered it and dissented from it in the follow- ing words : "With respect .there is no justification for construing· the words "in his hands" literally. If the words were to be con- strued literally, the section would not apply to a purchaser, who is not iil actual physical possession buf is in possession through his agent or his tenant or his mortgagee.

The words "in the hands" can and must only mean "held by" or "owned by" and cannot mean physical holding of the property. They onl(Y mean the hoJ9ing of the title and nothing else. · These words dp not indicate that the section was only intend- ed to apply to a pw·chaser or a mortgagee in possession:

S.xtion .58 of the Transfer of Property Act does not make any difference between a mortgagee, who is a simple mort- gagee, and a mortgagee with possession. It only slightly alters the rights that arc available to the mortgagee, but the actual transfer is the transfer of a subordinate interest in the mortgaged property and that is the same in both the cases". As explained above, even the literal meaning of the words "proc · perty in hand:' could be said to be wider than that of tangible pro- pcrty in physical possession. After all, a literal meaning or the ."plain . ordinary meaning" of words used becomes what words employed have come, by common use, to mean and to find recognition as their "dic- tionary meaniilg".

We .need go no further here. For applying the literal Rule of interpretation, which ordinarihy suffices unless there is good reason to depart from it, the Dictionary meaning has to be necessarilv relied upon. This does not exclude other very useful ai<ls to construction, such as a glance at legal history tO discover what a· provision was aimed at achieving. An attempt to apply what is known as the mischief Rule will, I think, lead to the same result. · As equitable principles evolved by the Chancellor's Court in

England underlie a number of provisions of our Transfer of Property Act, it is useful to remind ourselves of the equitable doctrine embodied in the proviso to Section 100. This doctrine is stated as foll0w.s in Halhsbury's Laws of England-III Edn. Vol. 14, page 539 :-

"1011. The legal estate gives priority. When there is an existing equitable interest in property, and an interest is · subsequently created in favour.of a purchaser for value with- out notice of the earlier interest, and that purch~ either gets in the legal estate at the time of his purchase, or, in certain circumstances, after his purchase, his possession of the legal (I) ATR 1940 Mad. 701.

[1975] 2 s.c.a. estate ~ves him priority over the earlier equitable owner. The equities being equal except as regards tllUe, the legal estate, properly got in by the owner of the later ~uitable interest, entitles him to hold the property either as absolute owner or until his mortgage is discharged, a:s the· case maiy be. There is, in the •absence of notice or of any other circumstances to postpone him, other than that of being later in point of time, no equity attaching upon his conscience by virtue of which the Court will deprive him of his legal advantage; and the subsequent purchaser is entitl~ to the like priority if he ·has the better right to call for a conveyance of the . legal estate. The importance which courts of equity, in deciding priorities, attach to the legal estate, is an instance of the gene- . ral principle that equity follows th·e law".

It will be seen that in the passage' set out above, the term "holder or the legal estate" is obviously used for one who holds the property ''either as absolute owner or until his mortgage is discharged as the case may be". In other words, for applying the equitable principle explained there, a mortgagee is equated with the absolute owner under an outright sale of rights. of ownership. A reference to Barwick & Co .. v. Price(') als.o shows that the meaning of the term "purchaser for value''. as including a mortgagee was so well settled in English law that. it received statutory recognition in Section 2(viii) of the Con- veyancing Act, 1882, there. Again, Section 205 ( 1) (xxi) of the Law of Property Act, 1925, · in defining "purchaser", made it abundantly clear, that both an ou.tright purchaser and a mortgagee could fall under the protective cover of the doctrine of a "bonafide purchaser for value". This only meant that English law too gave statuto~y form and expression to doctrines evolved by Courts of Equity. A bare

perusal of passages in .Pomeroy's Equity lurisprudence'1 is enou2b. to show that the concept of a "bonafide purchaser for value includes the mortgagee and. thai: a ~legal mortgagee" has, for the purposes of applying the dOctrine, a "legal estate". In a discussion . of "what constitutes a bona fide purchase", the need to show a piirchase of the whole interest which a transferor could pass finds no place (See : Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence 5th Edn. ·Vol. 3, para 145, pages 19-20). A distinction is made between the claims of a "legal mort- gagee", who is described as "holding of course, the legal estate", and those of a 11;1.erely "equitable mortagee" (See: Pomeroy, Vol. 3, para 741).

c The question whether a bonafide "purchaser for value" includes a . G "legal n1ortgagee" o~ not could arise only iii the context of use .of tlie tenn "purchaser" which became attached to the concept for historical reasons. As we have seen above the concept covers the ''legal mort- gagee" in English law. In the case before us; the s~le mortgag~ is a legal mortgagee and not merely an equitable mortgagee. Althougil the tem1 "purchaser'" is not used in Section 100.of the Aet;,,the proviSo to. it seems undoubtedly meant to incorpora,te the doctrine of a bona- a

· fide pW'Chaser for value in speaking of tr;u1sfer "for consideration", (I) (19$0]' (I) Ch. IS32. ·B c D. S. MOTE V, A. C. DATAR (Beg, J) Jt seems to me that the proviso to Section· I 00 is less capable of giv·· i ng l'ise to difficulty i11asmuch as the term purchaser is not used here .. It only speaks "of a person to whom such properUy has been transferr· cd for consideration without notice of the charge". One cannot help thinking that the language used here was designedly wider so as to· confer tr.c benefit of the proviso also upon persons other than pur· chasers of ownership l'ights. The only condition is that the property must have been transferred for consideration. This, of course, implies that the transfer covered should have been in accordance wit!\. law .. That is the only condition imposed by the proviso upon the kind of transferee who can get the benefit of it.

I see no reason for depriving·. <1 class of transferees of the benefit which was, I am convinced, meant. to be conforred upon them also by this proviso. The effect of provisions of' our Act is that a legally valid charge,. even though Section 100 makes it a legally enforceable claim, is not a transfer of properfy which, as Section 58 of the Act shows, a mort· gage is.

Neverthe!ess, a charge for purposes of enforceability would rank equafiy with a transfer of interest .in property provided ~he trans- feree had notice of that charge withln tlie meaning of "notice" as defined by Section 3 of th·~ Act. If a simple mortgage amounts to a transfer of property for the purposes of Section 100, as it does, it is immaterial that a transfer of property implies a transfer of the whole bundle of rights in property which the. transferor has for the purposes of· situations dealt with by other Sections. For example, Section s. of the Transfer of Property Act reads as follows :

"8. Operation of transfer. Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily- implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the trans· feree all the interest which the transferor is then capable of' passing in the property, and in the legal incidents thereof. Such incidents include, where the property is land, the

easements annexed thereto, the rents and profits thereof aecru- · ing after the transfer and all things attached to the earth; and, where the property is machinery. attached to the

earth, the movable parts thereof; and, where the property is a house, the easements annex- ed, thereto,- the rent thereof accruing after the transfer .and the locks, keys, bars, doors) windows. and all other things provided for permanent use therewith;

and, where the property is a debt or other · actionable claim, the securities therefor (except where they are also for other debts or claims not transferred to the transferee), but not arrears of interest accrued before the transfer; ·

. and, where the property is. money or other property yield- . ing income, the interest or income thereof accruing after the transfer takes effect". ·25 4 (1975] 2 s.c.R. Now this section, laiying down the effects, .incidents, and implications ·of a traxiskr begll\§ with words showing t.hat its operation is subject ·to express terms of transactions which restrict the rights of transferee.s to less than those of ownership. A mortgage is a transfer of property but not of ownership. Sectibn 8 embodies only a rule of int~rpretation for transactions o.t acts of purported transfer. It corresponds to Sections '60(1) and 62 of the English Law of Property Act, 1925. Transfers ·may be either of the whole or a part of the interest of the transferor. Section 8, in my opinion, was meant to govern matters not expre!sly providedl for in deeds of transfer. It was not, r think, intended at all to govern or Jay down the meaning of the term "transfer" whenever :used in the Act. That has been done expressly by ·Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Act. Various Sections of the Act, such as Section 58, dealing with various types of transactions, specifically Jay down whether a transaction of particular kind is a transfer or not. A number of other provisions of the Act to which references have been made in the course of arguments do not, in my opinion, rnally help us illl arriving at the correct meaning of the transferee of property contemplated by the proviso to Section 100 of the Act. It is enough, for the purposes of interpreting Section 100, to reach the conclusion, as I think we have to in view of other provisions of the Act, that the trans- feree may be of even an interest in property.

I regret that I am unable to share the view that the Bombay High Court, in the Judgment under appeal, stretched the meaning of the . words "in the hands of" too far to read something into Section 100 of- the Act which is not there. On the other· hand, I think that we will have to add some words if we import a limitation, which fa not there, into the words : "any property in the hands of a person to whom such property has been transferred for consideration'.'.

We will have to so read them. as to confine the meaning to a transfer of "full rights of ownersllip in property".. To do that, we will have to at least alter the words "such property" into "rights of ownership in such property". The words "such property" do not, it seems to me, stand only for "full· ownership of property'..

They obviously denote that property which has been transferred. If the transfer of an intereflt, in property to ·a mortgagee, whether simple or usufructuary, is a tr~er of property, ''such property" could only mean, in the case of a mol.tagee, the interest in property which has been transferred to the mortgagee because that i& also "property". The words used could not, i~ the context, stand only for the whole bun~le of. rights which ownership of such property may be made up of. In any case, what the mortgagee has in hand is only an 'interest.in property, so that this, and nothing more, is "property in~ bands of' a mortagee. When his case is under consideration that is all we are concerned with. We need indulge in no semantic refinements at · all to reach this result which flows directly from the words used iii the section. And, we need not unnecessarily cut down the apparent amp;. litude of their scope.

If we <:an reach Ill~ . s~e result on the question of priority of a simple mortgage as against charge; of which the mortgagee has no notice c c ·E D. S. MOTE V. A. C. DATAR (Beg, J.)

255 . by resorting to· the principles .of "equity, justice 1µ1d good conscience", the question arises: why can we not read Section 100 of the Act itself as a direet statutory recognition of those- very priciples when this pro" vision coatains, comprehensively, as it appears to me to be meant to do, · th.c requirements of equity, justice, and good conscieni:e, on the question. of priority between a charge-holder and other possible ti:iinsferees in· eluding a simple mortgagee agahlst whom the question ~ .eitforccability of a prior charge could arise?· To answer this· question satisfactorily I think we are, of necessity, driven to ~k. light from. the . principles. devCloP,Cd by the Chancellor's Court of Equify in England which ·.a number of our statutory provisions •are intended to incorporate into our statutory law just as a•number of them have been embodied in English statutory law now. If the maxim of equity is. that "equity follows the law", it is· no less true that statutory law gooerally purports to follows the behests of equity, justice, and good conscience~ .

A wide and liberal enolW! interpretation of the provisQ to Section, 100 of the Act to extend the benefit of it, as amend~ and clarified by Section 50 of the Transfer ofProperty (Anlendment) Act XX ofl929, to mortgagees also as bona fide transf.ettAls for value (the WQi'd "pur- cha.Ser seems to have been deliberately eschewed), is supported by an examination of all such relevant cases decided by differ~i Higli.Courts, on the' amended provision as have come to my notice, With the solitar)' exception of ArumilliSruayya's case (supra) of the Madras High.Court containing an·observation, quot.ed already, by Horwill, J. nio amen~ moot was apparently made to negative the view expressed in some cases , . that a charge could ·be enforced .even. against a bona fide purchaser for . value. without notice. The proviso shmild,I think, be so interpreted as • to amplify ·the remedy and to suppress the mischief aimed .. at by the aniend111ent. I may Diel)tion ~e cases decided on the assumption that the mortgagees were also proiCcted by the proviso. · · ·. In Chhaganlal Salcharam &: .Ani. v. Chunilal Jagmal & Ors.,(') tho question arose of priority of two m~a

by registered '1eeds over a prcviQUS charge in favour of the appellallts. The mort~ was ,given the benefit Of the amended Section 100· of tho' ~~t. ln, Barhu Mahto &: Anr. v. Sriinati Jasoda Devi &:· Ora.,(2) Fazl Ali, C.J., and B. P. Sinha, J., held that plaintiff who brought a suit to · enforce a right under a mortgage bond obtained Priority over a previous- . charge under a cOmpromisc decree. . Tbe te,arDed Judges remanded· the · H · case to the· Trial Court for framing an issue' 1µ1d

decid~th~ questjon. (l) AIR. 1934 BoJ!lbaY 1_89. (2) All\ i 94!-Pat. 42.6 .. SUPRF.~1P COURT REPORTS [I 975] 2 s.c.R. whether the transferor of the rights of the plaintiff under the mortgage bond (defendant 23) had notice of the charge upon which the Defen- dants-Appellants relied.

In Goswami Maheshpurl Guru Ramkrishnapuriji vs. Ramchandra' Sitaramii .t-. Anr. <') the plea of a Defendant chargeholder under a decree was repelled as against the plaintiff-respondent who had brought a suit to enforce a subsequent mortgage because the mortgagee had no notice of the charl!C, Grille, C.J .. observed with regard to the distiuc- ;tion between the unamended and amende(i sections (at page 5) : · ''The main difference to be noticed in the two sections is that the section as amended explicitly states that no charge would be enforced against a person taking the property for consideratio11 and without notice of the charge. The amend· ment was made in order to set at rest the conflict of decisions ·.that existed before. The view taken by the Judicial Commis- sioner's Court, Nagpur, before the amendment was that no

charge could be enforced against property in the hands of a person to whom such property had been transferred for con· sideration and without notice of the charge: 15 N.L.J. 141. This view was approved in 30 N.L.R. 303 at p. 305. The

view taken in si:veral other cases was that inasmuch as there is no transfer· of interest in property in. a charge while there is such a transfer of interest in a mortgage a charge would be good against subsequent transferee.~ such as mortgagees or purchasers only if the subsequent transferees bad notice of the prior charge : 33 Cal. 985, at p. 993, 38 All. 254 at p. 258 and\ 42 Cal. 625".

c Of course, the precise question raised before us was not actually 1·aised in the cases mentioned above, and, therefore, it was not decided there. But each of tl\ese decision$ rests on the assumption that ·a -simple mortagagee is also covered by the protection conferred by the amended proviso.

If this has been the basis on which deci- sions have been given until . now since the amendment of sec. 100 by Act XX of 1929, we should, I think, be. most reluc:tant to tread a new path on the meaning of such a statutory pro· vision unless we could not avoid doing so b'ecause some dear mis- C0'1ception of the law is revealed.

Another contention advanced On behalf of the appellant was. that 1heir prior rights would be protected by either the terms of or the princi- 1lles underlying Sec. 48 <>f the Act which reads as follows : (I) AIR 1944 Nai. II.

D, S. MOTE V, A. C. DATA'R. (Beg, J.) "S. 48. Where a person purports to create by transfer at different times rights in or over the same inmovable property, nnd such rights cannot all exist or be exercised to their full extent together, each later created right shall, in the absence of a· special contract or reservation binding the earlier trans- ferees, be subject to the rights previously created''.

The contention was that, although a charge may not be described as "a transfer", yet, the result of Section 100 of the Act was to equate it with a simple mortgage which is a transfer because Section 100 says : "all the provisions hereinbefore contained which apply to a simple mortgage shall, so far as may be, apply to such charge". I, think that, upart from the ·qualifying words, "so far as may be", used by Section I 00 of the Act, a condition essential io the applicability of Section 48 of the Act is that there must be an. actual. transfer of property. Furthermore1 another condition for invoking Section .48 of the Act is that the previous and the subsequently created rights "cannot' all exist or· lie exercised 'to their full extent together". In the case before us, this does not appear from facts found. In any case, the prior right of the charge-holder could only obtain priority provided other things are not unequal. This follows from words used indicating that each of the two or more transactions must at least be a "transfer". Furthermore, l>

the conditio!18 or' priority as between. the holder of a previous charge. and a subsequent simple mortgage are completely covered by Section 100 of the Act. The principle underlying ,Section 48 is·one expressed in'thc maxim of Equity: "Qui prior est tempore potior est jure" (first in time is stronger in ngbt) . This prin<:Uple, applied' to ranking between Tival equitable claims, is applied by Section 48 to contending claims of otherwise equal legal validity. .The effect of Section 100 is that whil~ a charge, whicli is not a "transfer'~ of .property, gets recognition as a· legally enforceable claim, that enforceability is subjected by the proviso to the requirements of a prior notice in order to give it precedence over a legally valid transfer of property .. The rights of the appellants charge. hold.ers -could only be exercised, on facts found, subject to• the priority obtained by the respondent·mortagagee's rights: This clear result of the law, as contained in Section 100 of the Act, cannot be defeated by invokng either the terms of or the principles underlying Seetion 48 of . the Act read with the first part only of Section 100 of the Act. If the respondent simple mortgage Oswal could not have claimed the benefit of the oroviso to Section 100. the first part of Section 100, read with Section 48 of the Act. could have come to the aid of the applicants. But. on the view adooted by me, this line of reasoning does not he'lp the unfortunate cbargeholders at all.

. 258. Lastly, learned Counsel for the appellants suggested that the mor- tgages made subsequent to the charge by a decree iii favour of the Motes wmi struck by tho doctrine of tis Pendena. Tho Bombay High Court. had repelled th.is contention on two grounds : firstly, tho pro. perties which were subsec1uently chat.ged with the payment of the debts to tho Motes were not the subject matter of suit No. 741 of 1938; and secondly, there was no Darkhast or execution application pending at tho time when tho simpL, mortgages in favour of the plaintiff respon• dent Oswal woro creat.od in 1949. I agree with these reasons for holding that tho doctrine Of Lis Pendens had no application on the facts of the case before us.

Tho result is that, finding myself in agr~ment with the views ex- pressed ·and tho conclusions reached by the Bombay Hig~ Court, I would diaDiiss these appeals. But, in the · ciroumstances of this case,, the par\ics must bear their own costs.

V. P. S. Appeals. dismissed 251 SupC . .I./75..,.250C~i'4·9-75-GIPF. c