Harnam Singh, J.:— By this order I dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 446 and 447 of 1952.
2. In Sundarchariar v. Narayana Ayyar . A.I.R 1931 P.C 36., Lord Tomlin delivering the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council said—
“In this connection it may be observed that though an agreement embodied in a written document requiring registration under section 17, Registration Act, and not so registered cannot be proved by the written document (see section 49, Registration Act) or by oral evidence see Shaw v. Foster . 1872 L.R 5 H.L 321., yet where there is no written agreement there seems no reason why the intent to create a security by deposit of title deeds under the exception provided for in section 59, T.P Act, should not be evidenced by written as well as by oral evidence”.
3. For Shaw v. Foster reference may be made to (1872) L.R 5 H.L 321. In this connection section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act may be seen.
4. In the present case Dip Chand made the receipt Exhibit A, on the 15th of August, 1944, and Amin Lal made the receipt, Exhibit B, on the 15th of August, 1944, in favour of the vendees. In the receipt Exhibit A, Dip Chand stated that on receipt of rupees 1,550/- he had sold land measuring 16 bighas 1 biswa to the vendees.
5. In the receipt, Exhibit B, Amin Lal stated that on receipt of rupees 550/- he had sold land measuring 5 bighas 5 biswas to the vendees. Plainly the receipts fall within section 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Indian Registration Act. If so the receipts did not affect the immovable property sold. Those receipts were not provable by oral evidence.
6. No other point arises in these proceedings.
7. In the result I dismiss Regular Second Appeal Nos. 446 and 447 of 1952.
8. In Regular Second Appeals Nos. 446 and 447 of 1952 I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.
9. Appeal dismissed.