JUDGMENT Dalal, J.
1. The plaintiffs are purchasers of a grove from the defendant Rani Indumati and sued for possession because in mutation proceedings she and other defendants objected to the entry of the plaintiff's names against the grove in suit. Both the Subordinate Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the registration was not-valid and there could be no transfer of a grove of the value of the property in suit except by means of a registered document. The principle of the rulings of the Privy Council reported in Harendra Lal v. Haridasi Debi A.I.R. 1914 P.C. 67 and Biswanath Prasad v. Chandra Narayan A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 8 have been followed. Possibly because these rulings are considered by Indian Courts to work hardship on honest litigants, attempts have been made to distinguish cases from these rulings. The learned Counsel for the appellants referred to a Bench ruling of this Court in Durga Prasad v. Tameshar Prasad A.I.R. 1924 All. 897. What happened in the present case was that for the purposes of convenience of the respondent lady who lived in Bishangarh and to save her the trouble of going to Mainpuri register a document of sale of a grove in Mainpuri, property with which she had previously parted in Bishangarh was included in the sale deed in suit to the knowledge of both parties and without the intention of either party to have a sale transaction of the house in Bishangarh. The facts of the case in Durga Prasad v. Tameshar Prasad A.I.R. 1924 All. 897 were different. There a property of small value was included in order to save parties the trouble of going a long distance away from their homes for registration. It was, however, held as findings of fact by this Court, which had jurisdiction to arrive at such findings in first appeals that small property which was included in the sale deed for the purposes of convenience did belong to the vendor and that it was the intention of both parties to effect the transfer of the property though they would not have included this property in the sale if it had not also served the purposes of convenience. All that was held was that if the reason for the transfer of property is convenience of registration, a transfer need not be invalid simply for that reason so long as the vendor did own the property and a transfer thereof was really intended. Another case of the Madras High Court was quoted from A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 432. In that case the mortgagee was not aware that a certain property included in the mortgage did not belong to the mortgagor. The Judges appear to have been inclined to believe that fraud was really practised on the mortgagee and that the mortgagee had not practised any fraud on the law of registration. These two cases are distinguishable, but the present is not, from Privy Council rulings, whatever the sympathy of the Court may be for the plaintiff, when a defence succeeds on this particular ground. Dr. Katju has informed the Court that it is not the female respondent who has been resisting the claim but there are other respondents who claim the property as their own. No particulars in the transaction in suit can be discovered to distinguish it from the transactions commented upon by the Privy Council rulings: so the suit was rightly dismissed by the two subordinate Courts. This appeal is dismissed with costs.