Surajmal and ors. Vs. Chandmal and ors.

transfer of property act - sale and registration act--section--agreement to recovery contained in a separate document--whether exempted from registration.;unless the condition for reconveyance is embodied in the document which purports to effect the sale the transaction does not amount to a mortgage. so the intention of the parties has become immaterial and an agreement to recovery contained in a separate document is a separate transaction which is exempt from registration under section 17(2)(v). - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....this is a revision application by the vendors against an order of the civil judge, jaipur city, holding that the agreement ex. a/6 dated 14-5-1956 is compulsorily registrable and is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.2. the material facts are these. the applications sold a portion of their house by means of a sale-deed executed on 2-5-56 and registered on 14-6-56. it was presented for registration on 14-5-56. respondent no. 1 filed the present suit for pre-emption on 18-4-57. the applicants filed an agreement ex. a./6 dated 14-5-56 under which the vendees respondents no. 2 and 3 agreed to reconvey the property. they also filed a registerted sale-deed dated 25-3-1957 under which the property was reconveyed by rspondents no. 2 and 3 to the applicants.3. the case of the applicants is that on the date on which the sale-deed dated 2-5-56 was executed they had entered into an oral agreement for reconveying the property with respondents no. 2 and 3 which was reduced into writing subsequently on 14-5-1956.4. on an application objection raised on behalf of plaintiff - preemptor (respondent no. 1) the trial court held that the agreement dated 14-5-1956 requires registration. having heard the learned counsel for the parties i am of the opioion that it falls under section 17(2)(v) and does not require registration.5. before the amendment of the transport of property act in 1929 it was the practice to mortgage property by conditional sale by executing two documents one conveying the property and the other containing an agreement for recoveyance. the question which used to arise frequeutly was whether the two documents evidence a single transaction of mortgage by conditional sale or whether the second document which evidences an agreement to recovery is separable from the first sale-deed. in harikishandas v. bai dhanu air 1925 bom. 497 a full bench of the bombay high court held that where the intention of the parties was to constitute a mortgage the agreement to.....