Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Milagres Sales Coutinho, filed a second appeal before the Bombay High Court at Goa challenging the judgment and order dated 22.06.2012 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2011. The lower appellate court had dismissed the appellant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 125/2007 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao, which had dismissed the appellant's suit for recovery of money due under a mortgage. The appellant claimed that he had acquired rights in a mortgage by transfer from the original mortgagee, Dr. Francisco da Piedade Abranches, and sought to recover the mortgage money from the respondents. The trial court framed four issues and answered them against the appellant, finding that the transfer of mortgage rights was not properly proved as the document of transfer was unregistered. The lower appellate court concurred with these findings. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that substantial questions of law arose regarding the validity of the transfer and the requirement of registration. The High Court, however, held that no substantial question of law was involved as the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence. The court noted that the transfer of mortgage rights requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the appellant's failure to produce a registered document was fatal to his claim. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal as the findings of fact by the lower courts were concurrent and based on evidence, and the appellant failed to show any perversity or error of law. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Mortgage - Transfer of Mortgage Rights - Registration - Section 17 Registration Act, 1908 - The transfer of mortgage rights by an unregistered document is invalid and cannot be enforced. The court upheld the dismissal of the suit for recovery of money due under a mortgage where the appellant claimed rights through an unregistered transfer deed. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of mortgage rights by an unregistered document is valid and enforceable, and whether any substantial question of law arises in the second appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose and the findings of fact were concurrent and based on evidence. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer of mortgage rights requires registration under Section 17 of Registration Act
- 1908
- Unregistered document cannot be relied upon to enforce mortgage
- No substantial question of law in second appeal under Section 100 CPC
