Genuine debt satisfaction and procedural stamping defects do not by themselves defeat a mortgage or invalidate registration.

A mortgage executed for adequate consideration in satisfaction of genuine debts is not voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 merely because it prefers one creditor over another, so long as no benefit is reserved to the debtor and the transfer is made in discharge of bona fide liabilities. An instrument stamped with a court-fee stamp of sufficient amount, later certified on payment of duty and penalty, is admissible in evidence under the Stamp Act and its registration is not invalidated by that stamping defect, because the error is procedural rather than jurisdictional and is protected where done in good faith under the Registration Act, 1908.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a mortgage executed for adequate consideration in satisfaction of genuine debts could be impeached as a transfer made with intent to defeat or delay creditors; (ii) Whether an instrument stamped with a court-fee stamp of sufficient amount, later certified on payment of duty and penalty, was inadmissible in evidence or invalidly registered for want of due stamping.

Issue (i): Whether a mortgage executed for adequate consideration in satisfaction of genuine debts could be impeached as a transfer made with intent to defeat or delay creditors.

Analysis: A transfer is voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only if it is made with intent to defeat or delay creditors and operates to remove property from the creditors to the debtor's benefit. A debtor may prefer one creditor over another where the transaction is supported by genuine indebtedness and no benefit is reserved to the debtor. Where the consideration is real and the transfer is made in satisfaction of bona fide debts, the mere fact that another creditor is thereby prejudiced does not by itself attract the section.

Conclusion: The mortgage could not be impeached under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the finding against the mortgagees on this ground was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether an instrument stamped with a court-fee stamp of sufficient amount, later certified on payment of duty and penalty, was inadmissible in evidence or invalidly registered for want of due stamping.

Analysis: Under Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, once an instrument is certified as duly stamped and admitted in evidence, its admission cannot later be challenged on a stamp objection. Section 37 and the rules made thereunder permit certification where the stamp is of sufficient amount but of improper description. Any error by a registering officer in accepting an instrument despite such a stamping defect is a defect in procedure, not a want of jurisdiction, and Section 87 of the Registration Act, 1908 protects acts done in good faith pursuant to the Act. The registration therefore was not rendered void merely because the instrument was initially stamped with a court-fee stamp rather than an ordinary revenue stamp.

Conclusion: The instrument was admissible in evidence and the registration remained valid under the Registration Act, 1908.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the mortgage failed on both merits and technical objections, and the mortgagees were entitled to succeed with restoration of the decree in their favour.

Ratio Decidendi: A genuine transfer for adequate consideration in satisfaction of bona fide debts is not voidable merely because it prefers one creditor over another, and a registration made in good faith is not invalid where the defect in stamping is one of procedure rather than jurisdiction.

---