BANGAT SINGH Vs. BOLAMA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SO long as the patta, which the landlord tenders to the ryot, has not been accepted by him, it seems to us impossible to hold that it is a lease for the purpose of the Registration Act. A lease necessarily involves the consensus ad idem of the minds of the lessor and the lessee, as is clearly recognised in the definition of a lease in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. It does not appear from the judgment in Vencatachellam Chetty V/s. Andian 3 M. 358, that the learned Judges had present to their minds the fact that the patta in that case had not been accepted by the tenant or that any argument was preferred to them suggesting that a patta not accepted could amount in law to a lease. The history of the legislation with regard to the registration of leases is referred to by the learned Judges as indicating that the word lease includes pittas and muchlikas, and this history may perhaps show that a patta, if accepted, is a lease, but does not lead to the conclusion that a pitta which is refused can be also a lease. The patta in the case was, therefore, properly in evidence.

(2.) WE must reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and remand the case to the District Court for disposal according to law. The costs will abide the result.