Lallubhai Shah, A C J

[1] His Lordship, after dealing with the facts of the case, proceeded : The first point that has been urged in support of the appeal is that the lower Court was wrong in its view that Exhibit 18 was not admissible in evidence for want of registration. That document is in these terms :

To,

Gurbasappa father Bassangowda residing at Hireyarankeri Pavti (lit. receipt) to wit. The receipt passed by me Huchangowda father Huchangowda residing ah Hireyarankeri is an follows:-I shall without any objection give up your land ah any time that you may ask me to give up-Dated 25th December 1913.

[2] It is signed by defendant No. 1 and attested by two witnesses. We do not think that this document could be held to be inadmissible for want of registration. It is at the most an agreement to reconvay when Gurubasappa would ask him to give up the property. In the trial Court, when the objection was taken, the point as to registration was disallowed, and the document was admitted in evidence on the footing of its being an agreement after the usual penalty for want of stamp was paid. We are not at all mire that the document in terms comes under Section 17(b) or (c), Indian Registration Act. It does not purport to do any of the things mentioned in that section, Clause (b) or (e). But even if it did, it seems that it would clearly be saved under Clause (v), Sub-section (2), of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act

[3] The judgment then discussed points not material to this report, and went on : As regards the question of limitation, it presents no difficulty. If this transfer was inoperative, and a mere paper transaction, it would not require to be set aside. It would be enough to refer on this point to the observations in Petherpermal Chetty v. Muniandi Servai (1908) L.R. 35 I.A. 98, 104 s.c. : 10 Bom. L.R. 590 and to the decision of this Court in Narsagounda v. Chawagounda (1918) I.L.R. 42 Bom. 638 s.c. : 20 Bom. L.R. 802 f.b. The Article that would apply to a case of this kind where the document is found to be inoperative is Article 144 and then the claim would be in time.

[4] We reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court with costs here and in the lower appellate Court on the respondents.