JUDGMENT

Page, J. - In this suit the plaintiff claims specific performance of an alleged agreement to lease certain premises known as No. 7, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, and, in the alternative, damages for breach of the said agreement.

2. It appears from the evidence that on the 19th November 1921 an interview took place between the plaintiff and the first defendant, who was then the owner of the said premises, as the result of which the terms of the alleged agreement to lease the said premises were embodied in the following, two letters:

                                             Calcutta, 19-11-1921,                                                  No. 7, Bowbazar Street.

3. Babu Haridas Mallick, of 46, Hidaram Banerji Lane.

4. Dear Sir,

5. I do hereby agree to take by our personal settlement your house and premises No. 7, Bowbazar Street on a lease for 21 years under following terms:

(1) Four thousand rupees salami.

(2) Rent Rs. 400 per month.

(3) Both taxes, owner and occupier, should be paid by me.

(4) Thorough repair will be done every five years.

(5) The period of lease will be settled from 1st of December 1921.

                                                                                                              (Sd.) Ramjoo Mahomed.                                                Calcutta, 19-11-1921,                                                                                   46, Hidaram Banerji's Lane.                          To Ramjoo Mahomed, Esq.,                                No. 7, Bowbazar Street.

6. Dear Sir,

7. I do confirm your letter dated 19th November 1921. All terms will be settled on the agreement.

8. Yours faithfully,

9. (Sd.) Haridas Mullick.

10. At all material times, both before and after the execution of these two letters, the plaintiff was in possession of the said premises. Neither of the letters of the 19th November 1921 was registered pursuant to the provisions of the Registration Act (XVI of 1908). On the 2nd March 1923 the first defendant sold the said premises to the other defendants whom I will call the Nan defendants, and on the 23rd April 1923 the Nan defendants served a notice on the plaintiff to quit the premises at the end of May 1923.

11. The defendants, inter alia., pleaded that, the said letters did not amount to a concluded agreement to lease the said premises, but, in the events that have happened, I have not heard the defendants' evidence on that issue. In the course of the trial the two letters of 19th November 1921 were tendered in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendants thereupon contended that if the said letters did not amount to a concluded agreement for a lease the plaintiff's claim must fail; on the other hand, if the letters were tendered as documents embodying the terms of a concluded agreement to let the said premises for a term of 21 years as alleged, they contended that the said letters, not having been registered, were inadmissible under Sections 2 (7), 17 and 49 of the Registration Act.

Section 2(7)---"Lease" includes a counterpart, kabuliyat and undertaking to cultivate or occupy, and an agreement to lease.

Section 17(1)---The following documents shall be registered....

(b) Other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100 and up wards, to or in Immovable property

(d) Leases of Immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent.

Section 49.---No document required by Section 17 to be registered shall (a) affect any Immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power unless it has been registered.

12. Counsel for the plaintiff urged that the said documents were admissible on the following grounds:

(i) That the agree