(1.) . 1. The facts found by the lower appellate Court are these: The lambardar of mouza Amakhapa on 23rd December 1928 created tenancy of the field in suit, in favour of defendant 2.. Defendant-2 paid Rs. 50 as nazarana and the lambardar executed a 'receipt. Defendant 2 was then placed in possession. Subsequently the lambardar desiring to resile from this transaction executed a registered lease in favour of the plaintiff's. On these findings the suit for possession of the field was dismissed. In appeal it is first urged that a lease of the field in perpetuity could be effected only by a registered document. It appears to me however that the creation of an occupancy tenancy need not be effected by granting a lease in perpetuity. To create such a tenancy it is sufficient to grant a lease for a year : the parties, must be presumed to know that by the operation of law the lessee becomes an occupancy tenant.
(2.) FOR the respondents it is urged that the transaction should be considered to be the creation of an interest in the immovable property. I think that in this case where the intention of the parties was that an occupancy tenancy should be created, the transaction is of this nature. The rights of an occupancy tenant differ from those of a perpetual lessee whose rights in future years depend upon the contract of lease. Defendant 2 was given the legal status of ah occupancy tenant. As the value of the interest was Rs. 50, there was no necessity for a registered document. It is next urged that the contract of lease was reduced to the form of a document and, therefore oral evidence is not admissible. But the document (Ex. 2 D-1), although it states in some detail the purpose for which the money was paid, is merely a receipt. It was necessary to grant a receipt and natural to mention the purpose for which the money was paid. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed : costs on the appellants : Counsel's fee Rs. 25. Respondent 1 who supported the appellant will bear his own costs.