GOVINDASAMI PILLAI Vs. RAMASAMI AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this petition is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 290 from the defendant for the use and occupation of certain lands.

(2.) There was a document between the parties purporting to be a lease but in as much as the agreement was reduced to writing hut not registered, it could not affect the immoveable property by reason of Sections 49 and 17(4) of the Indian Registration Act, XVI of 1908.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has, however, proceeded on the basis that, though this document is inadmissible for want of registration, to prove the leasing or the tenants right to the term in it, "yet it is admissible to prove , the rent agreed to be paid." In my opinion this is an erroneous view of the law. Section 17(d) of the Indian Registration Act provides that leases of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent shall be registered; and Section 49 provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immoveable property comprised therein...unless it has been registered." The document Exhibit A, therefore, which purports to be a lease of the property, cannot affect the immoveable property. It has been argued before me that, if the document is looked at for the purposes of fixing the rent between the parties, it does not a effect the property and, therefore, it may be operative in this regard notwithstanding Sections 49. I cannot accede to this argument. When there is a lease with reference to immoveable property, it seems to me that the terms on which the property is leased "affect" that property within the meaning of Section 49, and the rent reserved in the lease is the most important of the terms.