Mortgage characterization and registration bar control immovable property transactions; appellate relief cannot exceed the challenged decree.

A registered instrument was held to be a mortgage deed, not an outright sale, because it recorded an advance of money, delivery of possession, a fixed redemption period, and obligations consistent with mortgage terms. An unregistered later document could not be used to change or prove the character of a transaction affecting immovable property, as the registration bar applied to such instruments. On appellate relief, the High Court was not justified in granting rendition of accounts when the plaintiff had not appealed against the decree granting redemption, so that additional relief was set aside while the redemption decree otherwise stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the instrument dated 27 July 1922 was a mortgage deed or an outright sale, and whether the unregistered document dated 8 October 1922 could be relied upon to alter the legal character of the transaction. (ii) Whether the High Court could direct rendition of accounts in favour of the plaintiff while restoring the trial court decree, when the plaintiff had not appealed against the decree granting redemption.

Issue (i): Whether the instrument dated 27 July 1922 was a mortgage deed or an outright sale, and whether the unregistered document dated 8 October 1922 could be relied upon to alter the legal character of the transaction.

Analysis: The terms of the registered instrument showed that money had been advanced, possession was delivered to the mortgagee, a period for redemption was fixed, and the mortgagors were to pay the balance of interest and repair costs, all of which were consistent only with a mortgage. The later document, being unregistered, could not be received in evidence to prove a transaction affecting immovable property. The Court applied the statutory scheme of registration, holding that instruments compulsorily registrable under the Transfer of Property Act also fall within the bar created by Section 49 of the Registration Act after the 1929 amendment, and therefore an unregistered instrument of this kind could not alter or prove the nature of the transaction.

Conclusion: The document dated 27 July 1922 was a mortgage deed, and the unregistered document dated 8 October 1922 was inadmissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could direct rendition of accounts in favour of the plaintiff while restoring the trial court decree, when the plaintiff had not appealed against the decree granting redemption.

Analysis: The Court held that, in the absence of an appeal by the plaintiff against the trial court decree, the High Court was not justified in granting a further relief that went beyond the decree under challenge. The direction requiring the defendants to render accounts before claiming payment at redemption was therefore held to be unsustainable, though the rest of the High Court's decision restoring the trial court decree was maintained.

Conclusion: The direction for rendition of accounts was set aside, but the remainder of the High Court's decree was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed substantially, with only the direction for rendition of accounts being struck down, and the decree of redemption stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An unregistered instrument required to be registered under the Transfer of Property Act cannot be used to prove or vary a transaction affecting immovable property, and appellate relief cannot extend beyond the scope of the decree challenged in appeal.

---