SATYENDRA NATH BOSE Vs. ANIL CHANDRA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the plaintiff sues for specific performance of an agreement to execute and register a lease and tenders the agreement in which the terms are embodied.

(2.) The defendant objects to the agreement on the ground that it has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act. The agreement is dated the 16th September 1906 and provides for the grant of a lease to the plaintiff for a period of five years commencing from the next day, i.e., 1 Assin 1313, B.S. On the day that the agreement was executed, it was not to operate nor could it have operated, as a present demise to the plaintiff; and the agreement also provides that the plaintiff should get "proper qabuliyat registered at his own costs soon."

(3.) The defendant says that the agreement is, within the meaning of the Registration Act, not admissible in evidence as it is not registered. The sections of the Registration Act he relies on are first, Section 3 which says that "lease" includes "an agreement" to lease." Secondly, Section 17, Sub-section (d), which says that leases of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent must be registered," and thirdly, Section 49 which provides "no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property unless it has been previously registered." It has been pointed out that an agreement to lease of this nature is really an agreement for sale of the premises pro tanto. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act provides: "A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property" shall take place on terms settled "between the parties." It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.