( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in S. C. No. 33 of 1969 on the file of the Additional Distract Munsifs Court, Chodavaram. The suit was filed for recovery of rent of Rs. 400 due to the petitioner as per the lease deed dated 8-4-1968. The respondents contended that the lease deed in question is not admissible in evidence as it is not registered as required under Section 17, Cl. , (d) of the Indian Registration Act. The trial Court after going through the lease deed in question came to the conclusion that the document in question is a lease of immovable property reserving a yearly rent. As such it falls within the scope of Sec. 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act and therefore, inadmissible in evidence.

( 2 ) IN this revision Mr. C. Poornaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the document in question is a lease of immovable property reserving yearly rent and therefore falls within the scope of Sen. 17 (d ). He contends that a perusal of the document would show that the document was for a vernacular year and the least amount mentioned therein was for the vernacular year. According