TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (3) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants denied the plaintiff's title and claimed that they were occupying the house as licensees under the original owner thereof. They even alleged that although they had come to know from the proceedings in Suit No. 396 of 1964 (Lakhoo v. Sakina Bibi) to which they and the present plaintiff also were parties, Aziz Uddin, had purported to sell the house to the present plaintiff but, according to the defendants, he was not competent to do so as he was a mere licensee. The Sarkhat was also denied and it was contended that at any rate it was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. 2. Several issues were raised in the case. The suit was decreed by the trial court for ejectment and recovery of ₹ 180/- as arrears of rent and d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 107 of the T. P. Act. It is a rent note. Not being a lease, or in other words an instrument by which a lease of Immovable property could be created, in accordance with the requirements of Section 107 of the T. P. Act. for it is not executed by both the lessor and the lessee, it could not be said to be an instrument requiring registration according to the requirements of that provision, for even if it had been registered, it could not have created a lease. The period for which the house was taken according to the terms of the rent note was 11 months and the rent reserved therein was ₹ 5/- per month, it could not accordingly be said to be compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, although....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lict of decision is now settled by the amendment of Section 107 which requires a lease to be signed both by the lessor and by the lessee. A rent note or a Kabuliyat signed only by the intending lessee is not a lease under this Act, but would be a lease under the Registration Act and the question of its registration would be decided under that Act. A rent note not compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act. executed by a tenant in favour of a landlord, if not registered can be relied upon to establish the relationship existing between the parties." 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that the lower appellate court was right in relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mst. Kirpal Kuar v. Bachan Singh [....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to admit it in evidence to show the nature of her possession subsequent to it would be to treat it as operating to destroy the nature of the previous possession and to convert what had started as adverse possession into a permissive possession and, therefore, to give effect to the agreement contained in it which admittedly cannot be done for want of registration. To admit it in evidence for the purpose sought would really amount to getting round the statutory bar imposed by Sec. 49 of the Registration Act." The lower appellate court appears to have mis-applied the decision of the Supreme Court in Mst. Kirpal Kuar's case to the facts of the present case. It has not been proved 'n the present case that Aziz Uddin had been in adve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at case that such a document was admissible for collateral purposes such as a purpose of finding out the nature of possession of the defendants in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant-respondents had further filed a certified copy of a judgment dated 6th December, 1975 of the court of the IXth Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No. 397 of 1966 arising from Suit No. 396 of 1964, along with an application for its admission under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil P. C. There was a plea raised in the present case that the judgment of the trial court in Suit No. 396 of 1964 operated as res judicata. The plea was repelled by the trial court in the present case. On appeal, the matter was not gone into by the lower ....