Point of Law: Section 17(1) of Registration Act, 1908 states as documents of which registration is compulsory.

JUDGMENT :

POONACHA, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') by the Defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2018 passed in O.S. No.16840/2006 by the XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge At Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH - 20) (for short 'the Trial Court'), whereunder the suit filed for recovery of money was partly decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per the rank before the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit in O.S. N.16840/2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,34,924 together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. It is the case of the Plaintiff that it is the owner of the suit property and had let out the same to Nedungadi Bank (the predecessor in interest of the Appellant/Defendant) on a monthly rent of Rs.13,574/- and refundable advance of Rs.81,444/-. The tenancy was renewed as per Lease Agreement dated 23.09.2022 for a period of five years on monthly rent of Rs.23,144/- w.e.f. 01.09.1998 with an option to renew the same for a further period of five years by enhancing the rent @ 20% every three years and additional advance of Rs.1,32,969/-; that the Nedungadi Bank merged with the Defendant-Bank and thereafter, the Defendant vide Lease Agreement dated 23.09.2002 has started to pay monthly rent of Rs.23,414/- from 01.09.2002. In this regard, the Plaintiff gave a representation calling upon them to pay the rent as per the terms of Lease Agreement dated 23.09.2002. Having failed to pay the rent, as demanded by the Plaintiff, the suit was filed claiming the rent due as follows:

4. The Defendant entered appearance and filed its Written Statement denying the claim made by the Plaintiff. Although it admitted the fact that its predecessor in interest was in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant, the renewal and enhancement under lease agreement dated 23.09.2002 was denied. It was further contended that the alleged lease agreement dated 23.09.2002 contemplated a lease beyond one year and the same being unregistered and insufficiently stamped, the same is not recognized in law.

5. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed seven issues. The Plaintiff examined its Partner as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P10. The Defendant examined its Manager as DW.1. However, no documents was marked in evidence. The Trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 20.12.2018, partly decreed the suit filed by the Plaintiff and ordered that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,19,148/- from the Defendant with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Defendant contended that:

i) That the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation as the same has been filed on 25.09.2006 claiming arrears of rent from 01.09.1998.

ii) That the Lease Agreement dated 23.09.2002 is insufficiently stamped and an un-registered document, the same could not be looked into for the purpose of considering the claim of the Plaintiff.

iii) That the subsequent endorsement made in the Lease Agreement dated 23.09.2022 which contains the renewal and enhancement clause has been specifically d