1. The only question is whether the receipt required registration under Clause (n) of Section 17 of the Registration Act.
2. It may be doubted whether in view of the decision of this Court in Venkatarama Naik v. Chinnathambu Reddi 7 M.H.R. 1 and Venkayyar v. Subbayyar I.L.R. 3 Mad. 53 the money received in discharge of a mortgage can be deemed to be a consideration within the meaning of the clause. Since those decisions, however, the law has been amended, a clause is now added Clause (n) which, as it might be argued, indicates that receipts given by a mortgagee purporting to extinguish the mortgage do require registration in the present case, assuming that this is the effect of the amendment, we do not think that the language of the receipt indicates any intention to extinguish or limit the mortgagor's interest. The instrument, therefore, did not require registration. We must dismiss the appeal with costs.
3. The memorandum of objection is also dismissed with costs.