An unregistered agricultural lease is inadmissible as evidence of title but can be used for collateral purposes, such as determining the nature and character of possession. Actual possession, coupled with payment and acceptance of rent, can confer raiyati interest, even without a registered lease.

R.Narasimham, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 3 against the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Giridih and declaring the plaintiffs raiyati title to the suit lands and recovery of possession of the same.

2. The disputed lands consist of 1.57 acres, bearing plots Nos. 95, 96 and 106. appertaining to Khata No. 9 of village Chowra. The area of the entire khata was 2.53 acres, and the khata included the aforesaid three plots and three other plots, bearing Nos. 713, 714 and 758. One Kewal Gorait was the recorded tenant, and the landlord was Raj-mata Hridaya Kumari. The plaintiffs case was that the said Kewal Gorait died issue-less, and thereupon all the said plots came into the khas possession of the landlord. The plaintiffs alleged that, on the 15th Aswin 1343 fasli (October, 1935), the landlord settled the disputed lands, by virtue of a hukumnama (exhibit 2), on a raiyati basis with plaintiffs, 1. 2 and 8 and one Hemlal Mahto (deceased) (the father of plaintiffs 3 to 6 and husband of plaintiff 7) at an annual rental of Rs. 2/-, and put them in possession of the same. They claimed to have continued in possession thereafter and to have regularly paid rent and obtained rent receipts from the landlord. But their possession was disturbed on or about the 8th Julv. 1957, and this led to a proceeding under Section 144. Criminal Procedure Code, which was eventually converted into a proceeding under Section 145. Criminal Procedure Code, That proceeding was decided against the plaintiffs on the 2nd January, 1958. The suit under appeal was then brought for declaration of raiyati interest and recovery of possession.

3. The contesting defendants, viz. 1 and 3, while challenging the genuineness of the hukumnama (exhibit 2) produced by the plaintiffs and the alleged rent receipts, further stated that the entire khata No. 9 was settled by the landlord, Rajmata Hridaya Kumari, by virtue of a huhumnama dated the 9th Aswin 1346 (exhibit C), with one Kuni Bihari Rai, who came into possession and remained in possession till his death. Defendants 1 and 3 came into possession of the disputed lands as heirs and successors-in-interest of the said Kuni Bihari Rai. and have been in possession all along and paving rent. They further alleged that portions of the original khata were alienated in favour of some of the other defendants.

4. Thus, the main question in controversy was whether, after the disputed lands had become bakasht of the landlord, Rajmata Hridaya Kumari, she settled them with the plaintiffs by virtue of the hukum-nama (exhibit 2) in 1343 fasli and put them in possession of the same or else whether she settled them with Kuni Bihari Rai by virtue of the other hukumnama (exhibit C) of 9th Aswin 1346, and put him in possession of the same. Both the parties claimed their title to the lands not only on the basis of the respective hukumnamas but also on the fact that they obtained possession and continued in possession of the same and paid rent for several years to the landlord Both the hukumnamas are, admittedly, unregistered documents, and each partv alleged that the hukumnama and the rent receipts filed by the rival party were not genuine but were fabricated

5. The Learned Munsif held that the hukumnama relied on by the plaintiffs (exhibit 21 was a suspicious document, and that in any case, as it was not registered, no title, passed by that document. He was not in-clined to attach much importance to the rent receipt filed by the plaintiff? mainly because, though they referred to the correct khata number and the area, they did not refer to the plot numbers, and tie thought that there was no evidence to show that those receipts really related to the lands in dispute. He further held that the plaintiffs possession of the disputed lands and their continuance in possession till the commencement of the proceeding under sections 144 and 145, Criminal Procedure Code, before