GADIRAJU SANYASI RAJU Vs. KANDULA KAMAPPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the important questions to be decided in this appeal is whether the agreement Ex. A-6 is a lease falling within the ambit of Section 17(1) (d) and, therefore, comes within the mischief of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. The Act defines a lease as including an agreement to lease.

(2.) The Privy Council decision in Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midhapur Zamindari Co. ILR 47 Cal 485 at p. 494: (AIR 1919 PC 79, at p. 80) dealt with the meaning of the phrase agreement to lease and their Lordships made the following observations :

(3.) Their Lordships were, in that case, dealing with an agreement which was not enforceable on the date when it was entered into but which could become enforceable only in case a certain event happened. Before that decision was rendered, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court had in Narayanan Chetty v. Muthiah Servai, ILR 35 Mad 63 (FB) ruled that) an agreement to execute a sub-lease and to get it registered at a future date is a lease within Section 3 of the Indian Registration Act III 06 1887 and is compulsorily registerable under Clause (d) of Section 17. Some time after the case in ILR 47 Cal 485 : (AIR 1919 PC 79) was decided, a similar question came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Ramaswami. Mudaliar, ILR 44 Mad 399 at p. 404 : (AIR 1931 Mad 72 at p. 73). Referring to the observations of the Privy Council in ILR 47 Cal 485 : (AIR 1919 PC 79) one of the learned Judges remarked as follows, after quoting the passage above extracted from the decision.