An unregistered lease deed is admissible in evidence for collateral purposes, such as to determine the nature of possession of the parties. A tenant who has paid rent to the landlord is estopped from disputing the title of the landlord under general principles of estoppel. A simple suit for eviction is maintainable without payment of ad valorem Court fee on the market value of the suit property, where the relationship of landlord and tenant is proved and the defendants are estopped from challenging the title of the plaintiff.

1. This second appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 17-7-1984 passed by Shri Ranjit Prasad Sinha, 3rd Additional Subordinate Judge, Giridih in Title Appeal No. whereby and where under the said learned Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 8-8-1981 passed by Shri D.K. Lal, Munsif, Giridih in Title Suit No. 260 of 1970.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit, inter alia, on the ground that the properties in question belonged to one Dhanpat Ram, predecessor in interest of the defendants who by reasons of a sale deed dated 14-5-1966 (Ext. 2) transferred his right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff. By an unregistered agreement dated 15-5-1966, the plaintiff inducted the said Dhanpat Ram as a tenant in the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 125.00 . According to the plaintiff the rent in respect of the said tenanted premises was paid up to December, 1967 by the aforesaid Dhanpat Ram.

4. On the other hand, the case of the defendants-respondents is that the properties in suit actually belonged to Nando Ram father of Dhanpat Ram. Upon the death of Nando Ram, all his heirs and legal representatives i.e. Dhanpat, his other brothers and the defendants inherited the said properties. It was further the case of the defendants-respondents that Dhanpat Ram, being only a co-parcener, had no power or authority to transfer the properties in question without any legal necessity. The defendants have further denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and they had set-up their own right, title and interest in respect of the properties in suit in themselves.

5. The learned trial Court held that Dhanpat Ram was the owner in respect of the properties in question and by reason of the aforementioned agreement dated 15-5-1966 (Ext. 1) he become a tenant in respect of the suit premises and upon his death his heirs also become tenants under the plaintiff and thus there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit.

6. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiffs-appellants suit.

7. On appeal, the learned lower appellate Court reversed the said judgment and decree, inter alia, on the ground that Dhanpat Ram had no authority to execute the aforementioned sale deed dated 14-5-1966 alone and as such the said deed of sale was void ab initio and no title passed thereby to the plaintiff. The learned lower appellate Court further held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant by and between the plaintiff and the defendants and as such the defendants cannot be directed to be evicted. The learned Court of appeal below further held that in view of the fact that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 4,000.00 only out of Rs. 12,000.00 which was the consideration amount in respect of the said deed of sale and as the balance consideration money was not paid, no title on that account also passed to the plaintiff by name of the said deed of sale.

8. The learned lower appellate Court further held that the Kirayanama dated 15-5-1966 (Ext. 1) was inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever.

9. At the time of admission, by an order dated 5-5-1985 the following substantial questions of law were formulated:-

" (1) Whether in the nature of the suit that it was, the Court below could have gone into an elaborate discussion with regard to the validity of the sale deed which was executed in favour of the appellant?

(2) Whether in view of the fact that the defence of the respondent against ejectment had been struck off, whether the Court below could have considered the evidence of the respondent also for recording a finding that he was not a defaulter in paying the rent within the meaning of law"?

9A. Mr. N.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that, true it is, that the Kirayanama dated 15-5-1966 (Ext