CHITTILAPPALLI MATHAI Vs. CHITTILAPALLI KOCHOUSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the document relied upon by the plaintiff to evict the tenants, who are the petitioners in this petition, is admissible in evidence or not?

(2.) THE relevant portions of the document, Exhibit A, which is a cooly -chit, are as follows:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent contends that though the agreement is to pay yearly rent of Rs. 6 and to repair the house, the overriding clause in the agreement is that the tenant shall surrender the shed whenever the landlord demands the same without causing any loss whatsoever, and this overriding clause does not make the tenancy agreement to fall within the scope of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, and therefore it is not registrable as such and the lower Court was right in admitting the same in evidence. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon a series of decisions of the Bomaby and Madras High Courts, as also a decision of the Lahore High Court. They are Jagjivandas Javherdas v. Narayan, I.L.R.(1884) 8 Bom. 493 Ratnasabhapathi v. Venkatachalam, I.L.R.(1891) Mad. 271, Aishan v. Municipal Committee, 92 Ind.Cas. 526 (2), Pandu Mahipat v. Shivashankardas Skivlaldas, (1928) 118 I.G. 702, Mengh Raj v. Nand Lal, A.I.R. 1939 Lah. 558, and the English decision relied upon by the respondent is Morton v. Woods, (1868) 3 Q.B. Cases 658.