Lease of market dues rights treated as immovable property; registered lease prevailed over alleged renewal and partnership bar failed.

A right to collect market dues from land was treated as a benefit arising out of land and therefore immovable property capable of transfer by lease, with registration required for a term exceeding one year. The instrument in favour of the plaintiff was held to be a lease, not a licence, because it was bilateral, supported by consideration, and conferred exclusive possession for a fixed term. An alleged prior renewal of the defendant's lease was found ineffective against the plaintiff's registered lease, and the doctrine of holding over did not apply. The partnership bar under Section 69(2) did not apply because the contract was entered in the plaintiff's individual capacity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the right to collect market dues was immovable property capable of transfer by lease. (ii) Whether the document in favour of the plaintiff created a lease or merely a licence. (iii) Whether the alleged renewal of the defendant's earlier lease could defeat the plaintiff's later registered lease. (iv) Whether the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.

Issue (i): Whether the right to collect market dues was immovable property capable of transfer by lease.

Analysis: A right to collect dues from a market held on land is a benefit arising out of land and therefore falls within the concept of immovable property. Such a right may validly be transferred by lease, and a lease for a term exceeding one year requires registration.

Conclusion: The right was immovable property and was capable of being transferred by lease.

Issue (ii): Whether the document in favour of the plaintiff created a lease or merely a licence.

Analysis: The document was bilateral, recited consideration, and conferred exclusive possession over the right to collect market dues for a fixed term. Those features satisfied the essential ingredients of a lease and negatived the notion of a mere licence.

Conclusion: The transaction was a lease and not a licence.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged renewal of the defendant's earlier lease could defeat the plaintiff's later registered lease.

Analysis: The alleged renewal documents were found to be fabricated and ante-dated. Even otherwise, the alleged renewal was unsupported by a registered instrument and could not prevail against the plaintiff's prior registered lease. The defendant also failed to establish that the plaintiff had notice of any valid prior renewal, and the doctrine of holding over did not apply.

Conclusion: The alleged renewal was ineffective against the plaintiff's lease and the defendant had no right to remain in possession after expiry of her original term.

Issue (iv): Whether the suit was barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.

Analysis: The plaintiff entered the lease in his individual capacity, and no partnership existed when the contract was made. A contract made with one partner as principal may be enforced by him alone when the contract itself does not show agency for a firm. The statutory bar therefore did not apply.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiff's registered lease was held valid and enforceable, the defendant's alleged extension was rejected, and the trial court decree awarding the deposited amount to the plaintiff was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A right to collect market dues arising from land is immovable property and, when granted by a registered bilateral lease conferring exclusive possession, cannot be displaced by an unregistered or fabricated alleged renewal or by a later unilateral cancellation; the partnership bar does not apply where the contract was entered into by the plaintiff in his individual capacity.

---