1. This appeal must fail. It arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract of zarpeshgi said to have been entered into by defendant 4 with the plaintiff on 15th December, 1914, and for a declaration that the usufructuary mortgage bond executed by defendant 4 in favour of defendant 1, dated 8th January, 1915 was collusive and for confirmation of possession of 3 bighas 12 cottahs 15 dhurs of land agreed to be given in zarpeshgi to the plaintiff.
2. The Court below has found as a fact that defendant 4 did contract with the plaintiff to execute the mortgage bond in terms mentioned in the plaint. It has also been found as a fact that the mortgage bond executed in favour of defendant 1 was collusive and without any consideration. Upon the above findings the Court below has decreed the plaintiff's suit in toto and has also declared that the zarpeshgi deed in favour of defendant 1 shall have no priority over the bond to be executed in favour of the plaintiff.
3. The learned vakil for the appellants does not contest the findings of fact and cannot do so in second appeal. He simply urged that the lower Court was wrong in declaring that the bond to be executed in favour of the plaintiff shall have priority over the deed already executed in favour of defendant 1, inasmuch as the document in favour of the defendant being a registered one has under Section 50 of the Registration Act of 1908, priority over the unregistered or oral agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
4. This contention has no force in it, in view of the fact that the Court has held that the bond in favour of defendant 1 was collusive and tainted with fraud. S. 50 has no application in cases where the registered bond is tainted with fraud and the party holding the registered deed has no claim to priority by virtue of this section the object of which is to put an end to fraud. The authorities on this point are too numerous and the principle of law as well known.
5. The appeal is therefore dismissed with, costs.
V.S/R.K
6. Appeal dismissed.