ARUMUGA MUDALIAR Vs. MURUGA MUDALIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against an order of remand by the lower appellate Court of a suit dismissed by the trial Court. The suit was for refund of a certain sum of money paid to the defendant by the plaintiffs under a contract by the defendant to lease certain lands to the plaintiffs, and for recovery of damages for breach of the contract. The plaintiffs relied on Ex. A in proof of the lease; but the trial Court held it to be inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, and dismissed the suit as not therefore maintainable. On appeal the lower appellate Court has remanded the suit after reversing the view of the trial Court in regard to the admissibility in evidence of Ex. A.

(2.) Exhibit A runs in the following terms in the translation to be found in para. 9 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court which I prefer on the whole to the translation to be found in the record printed here :

(3.) It is contended for the appellant that the document falls within Clause (d) or Clause (b) or at any rate, within Clause (c) of Section 17(l), Registration Act, and that under Section 49 of the Act it cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the immovable property comprised therein. It is urged that if it cannot be received as evidence of the contract, the breach of which is the gist of the action in the present cage, no other evidence too can be given of such contract by reason of the bar of Section 91, Evidence Act.