RAO SAHEB Vs. UMRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land in dispute is sir land belonging to the plaintiffs. On the 29th January 1922 they executed a document agreeing to lease it in perpetuity to the defendant for a premium of Rs. 647 on an annual rent of Rs. 12 and they put him in possession. This document undoubtedly required registration, according to the principles stated in Sonu v. Bhadria A.I.R 1923 Nag. 171, and as it was never registered it cannot now be used to prove the lease or the agreement to lease, of which also all other evidence is excluded by Section 92, Evidence Act, so that the defendant has to be treated as a tenant from year to year.

(2.) THE fact that there was no registered document conferring the lease was not discovered till 1923, and in a suit filed on the 7th September of that year the plaintiffs claimed a decree for ejectment on the false allegation that the lease was for eight years and the defendant was holding over. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the defendant had not been given any notice to quit. Thereafter the plaintiffs gave him formal notice and filed the present suit for ejectment on the 30th April 1925.

(3.) ON the facts that have so far been taken into consideration in the case the decision of the lower appellate Court is undoubtedly correct. In deciding that the plaintiffs must pay Rs. 647 to the defendant before taking possession, the learned Addl. District Judge has gone entirely on general principles of equity. That is not necessary when there is a statute governing the matter, and the statute in this case is the Contract Act, of which Section 65 leads to the same result, both in regard to the liability to refund and the amount to be refunded.