1. The second appeal is by the defendant-tenant in a suit for recovery of land on the basis of a Coolicharth, which has been decreed concurrently by both the courts below and the only two questions are: (1) whether the Coolicharth is not admissible in evidence for want of registration; and (11) whether the plaintiff landlord is not entitled to recover enhanced rent on the basis of an oral agreement between the parties subsequent to Coolicharth.

2. The Coolicharth in question is Ext A dated 5-7-1120. It was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and provided for payment of Rs. 120 annually at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensum towards rent for the site covered by it and taken by the defendant for his trade purposes The payment of an advance of three months' rent amounting to Rs. 30 was then received. The defendant finally undertook that on demand at any time he would dismantle the Chappura erected on the site by his predecessors and give vacant possession. The question of non-admissibility of Ext A in evidence was raised by the defendant in the court below on two grounds, first that Ext A must be taken to reserve an yearly rent within the meaning of the first par