[1] We agree with Mr. Justice Pinhey that the 4th defendant in this case is not a defaulter within the meaning of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The word is not defined in that Act, but reading it along with Regulation XXVI of 1802, we think that the term defaulter applies only to the registered pattadar, Regulation XXVI of 1802, Section 3 provides: Transfers of land made by individual persons, without being so registered in the registers of the Collectors, shall not be valid in the Courts of Adalat; and such transfers of land being unregistered, shall not exempt the persons in whose names the entire estates are registered from paying the revenue due to Government from such lands". The effect of this section is that unregistered transfers are invalid against Government. Although valid as between private parties, Mangamma v. Timmapaiya 3 M.H.C.R. 134 and so the registered pattadar remains the land-holder within the meaning of the Revenue Recovery Act and the person liable to pay the revenue under Section 3, and becomes a defaulter within the meaning of the Act if he does not so pay. The suit, therefore, fails in so far as it is based on Section 35 of the Act. The respondent then seeks to support the judgment on the ground that the case is covered by Section 69, Indian Contract Act. He contends that although he may not be the mortgagee of the share the appellant obtained on partition, he is the mortgagee of the shares of the other defendants. In that case the appellant is not bound by law to pay the revenue which the plaintiff has paid, and this contention fails.

[2] The appeal is allowed and the order of this Court and the decree of the Subordinate Judge s Court are reversed so far as the 4th defendant-appellant is concerned; and the suit is dismissed as against him with costs throughout.