JUDGMENT K.K. Varma, J. 1. This is plaintiff-sub-mortgagee's appeal from the decree dated 17-8-1974of the Additional District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No. 1-A/1973. 2. The aforementioned first appeal was filed by the mortgagors (respon-dents 1 to 3) from the preliminary decree for sale of their fields, passed by the First Civil Judge Class-I, Guna on 31-1-1970 against them as well as the mortgagees, present respondent no. 4 Minadevi and her husband Kunjbehari Lal (since deceased); for recovery of seven thousand rupees. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the sub-mortgagee's suit so far as the mortgagors are concerned, maintaining the decree as against the mortgagees. 3. The first appeal and the second appeal have been heard ex parte against the mortgagees (respondent no. 4) Minadevi and respondents 5 to 10, sons and daughters of Kunjbehari Lal, the other co-mortgagee. 4. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 Tarabai and her sons mortgaged their agricultural lands with the aforesaid mortgagees by a registered mortgage deed dated 13-7-1966 in consideration of nine thousand rupees. The mortgage money was to be repaid in five yearly instalments, falling on 30th May of the years 1967 to 1971. There was a clause providing for mortgagors' liability to pay the entire amount due at once on making any default in paying these instalments. 5. The plaintiff's case was that on 19-7-1967 the mortgagees Kunjbehari Lal and his wife Minadevi, transferred their rights (accrued under the mortgage deed dated 13-7-1966) in his favour by executing a mortgage deed in consideration of seven thousand rupees. This mortgage deed purported to transfer the mortgagees' right to recover seven thousand rupees from the mortgagors payable on the dates of instalments falling on 30th May from 1968 to 1971. 6. The mortgagors, however did not make any payment to the sub-mortgagee. His demand notice dated 19-6-1968 remained unanswered by the mortgagors and the mortgagees. 7. The original mortgagors averred that they repaid seven thousand rupees to the mortgagees on 3-12-1967. They say that the registered notice dated 17-4-1968 sent to them by the sub-mortgagee was the first intimation to them of the transaction between the mortgagees and the sub-mortgagee. They therefore, gave an appropriate reply to the sub-mortgagee's notice dated 17-4-1968. 8. The suit had been heard ex-parte as against the mortgagee. 9. The Courts below have concurred in finding the averments at paragraphs 5 and 6 (supra.). 10. They therefore, gave an appropriate reply to the sub-mortgagee's notice dated 17-4-1968. 8. The suit had been heard ex-parte as against the mortgagee. 9. The Courts below have concurred in finding the averments at paragraphs 5 and 6 (supra.). 10. The learned trial Judge rejected the mortgagors, story of repayment by them of seven thousand rupees to the mortgagees on 3-12-1967. Further, he held that such a payment did not discharge the mortgagors, obligation to pay seven thousand rupees to the sub-mortgagee because the registration of the mortgage deed dated 19-7-1967 in favour of the sub-mortgagee amounted to notice to them of that instrument from the date of registration. 11. The learned appellate Judge accepted the mortgagors' evidence of repayment of seven thousand rupees to the mortgagees. Relying on Parbhu Lal v. Chattar AIR 1925 All 557.; he held that the registration of the mortgage deed dated 19-7-1967 did not amount to notice to the mortgagors of that instrument. The sub-mortgagee was, it was further held on the authority of Mohan Singh v. Pt. Sewa Ram AIR 1924 Oudh 209. entitled to recover the amount due on the mortgage in his favour, only from Kunjbehari Lal and Meena Devi. 12. The first point for determination is whether explanation 1 below the definition of "Notice" in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is attracted to the case as against the mortgagors. 13. The definition of 'notice' has been amended and the three Explana-tions added by Section 3 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Act, 1929. Explanation 1 has been further amended by the Transfer of Property Act, V of 1930. 14. The material portion of the Explanation 1 is that where any tran-saction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property or any part thereof or share or interest in such property shall be deemed to have notice of such instrument as from the date of registration. 15. Now the mortgaged property remained in possession of the mortga-gors-the mortgage was a simple mortgage in favour of the mortgagee, who got the right to have immovable property sold under a final decree for sale in the event of the mortgagors' failure to repay the loan. 15. Now the mortgaged property remained in possession of the mortga-gors-the mortgage was a simple mortgage in favour of the mortgagee, who got the right to have immovable property sold under a final decree for sale in the event of the mortgagors' failure to repay the loan. Thus, it is a speci-fic kind of right which could be exercised in fact and law only against, but not by, the mortgagors or those deriving title from them. Thus, the mortga-gors of property under a simple mortgage of paying off the mortga-ge-debt-were not thereby acquiring any interest of the mortgagees. I, therefore, hold that Explanation 1 below the definition of "Notice" in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act is not attracted to the facts of this case. 16. There is not pleading or proof that the mortgagors had any notice of the transaction contained in the mortgage-deed dated 19-7-1967 before receiving the sub-mortgagee's notice 17-4-1968. 17. It is, therefore, established that the mortgagors had no notice of the mortgage deed dated 19-7-1967 before they received the sub-mortgagee's notice dated 17-4-1968. 18. The next point for determination is whether the first appellate Court's finding that the mortgagors had repaid seven thousand rupees to the mortgagees is perverse. 19. Kamta Prasad (D. W. 1) deposed that he borrowed seven thousand rupees from one Arjun Singh Raghuvanshi of Mohana on 1-12-1967 and paid the amount to Kunjbehari Lal on 3-12-1967 at Ashok Nagar in the presence of Jyot Singh (D. W. 3) of Bakon and D. W. 2 Guman Singh of Khera-the latter writing out the receipt (Ex. D-2), which was signed by Kunjbeharilal. 20. Guman Singh (D.W. 2) and Jyot Singh (D.W. 3) are dis-interested witnesses. 21. The date of the receipt (Ex D-2) is in thicker figures and letters than the recital of the receipt. The appellant's learned counsel put forward this fact as evidence of inter-polation. This suggestion was denied by Kamta Prasad (D.W. 1) in cross-examination (vide para 19). The scribe of the notice denied that the line was interpolated. 22. Jyot Singh (D.W. 3) confessed ignorance about the suggestion that the alleaged interpolated portion was written afterwards. 23. The result is that the learned Additional District Judge was per-fectly within his right in accepting the evidence about repayment of seven thousand rupees to Kunjbehari Lal. In second appeal such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with. 22. Jyot Singh (D.W. 3) confessed ignorance about the suggestion that the alleaged interpolated portion was written afterwards. 23. The result is that the learned Additional District Judge was per-fectly within his right in accepting the evidence about repayment of seven thousand rupees to Kunjbehari Lal. In second appeal such a finding of fact cannot be interfered with. (See Ramchandra v. Ramalingam AIR 1963 SC 302 .. 24. The next point for determination is whether the receipt (Ex D-2) was required to be registered. 25. The appellant's learned counsel relied on Clause-(c) sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act. (No. XVI of 1908). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents nos. 1 to 3 relied on Clause(xi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 (ibid) I, therefore, propose to set out the relevant provisions:- 17 (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which and if they have been executed on or after the date on which Act No. XVI of 1964 or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (XX of 1866) or the Regis-tration Act, 1871 (VII of 1871), or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (III of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force, namely : (c) non-testamentary instruments, which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; (2) Nothing in cls. (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to-- (xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mort-gage, when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage." 26. It is significant that in Clause (XI) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 views the words "when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage". 27. In the instant case, the receipt Ex. D-2 does not purport to extin-guish the mortgage. As such, the receipt did not require registration (See Pandurang v. Narayan AIR 1924 Nag. 111.). 28. The result is that the mortgagors has no notice of the mortgage deed dated 19-7-1967 at the time they repaid the loan due on the mortgage deed dated 13-7-1966. D-2 does not purport to extin-guish the mortgage. As such, the receipt did not require registration (See Pandurang v. Narayan AIR 1924 Nag. 111.). 28. The result is that the mortgagors has no notice of the mortgage deed dated 19-7-1967 at the time they repaid the loan due on the mortgage deed dated 13-7-1966. As such, the payment to the mortgagees was good in law and in face of that the sub-mortgagee has now no right of recovery of the mortgaged money due under the mortgaged deed dated 19-7-1967 from the mortgagors or the mortgaged property (See Sahadev Ravji Bagade v. Shekh Papa Miya XXIX ILR Bombay 199. and Mohan Singh v. Sewa Ram AIR 1924 Oudh 209. 29. In the result, the first appellate Court's decree is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fees Rs. 200/- if certified. A decree be drawn up accordingly.