The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered lease deed can be admitted as evidence to prove possession as a tenant under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, despite the requirement for registration.

ORDER :- This Revision Petition challenges the finding and order of the learned trial Court on a preliminary issue with regard to the admissibility of a document for want of registration.

2. Respondents brought a suit against the applicant/defendant for possession of property situate at village Paroda and registered in the Land Registration

Office, Quepem under No. 9746. The land in question was admittedly given on lease to the applicant/defendant by respondent No. 1 under an unregistered document dated 18-1-1967. The lease purported to be in force for a period of six years. Respondent No. 1 in 1973 leased out the same property in favour of respondent No. 2. On the basis of this right respondent No. 2 served a notice on the applicant/defendant asking him to vacate the suit land.

3. It is also alleged in the plaint that the lease deed in favour of the applicant/defendant being unregistered did not pass any right or interest in his favour and for this reason also he was liable to be evicted.

4. The applicant/defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. About non-registration it was pleaded that the document could not be registered as respondent No. 1 avoided to do so and gave repeated assurances that he would honour the lease. Besides, it was pleaded, that both parties were acting upon the lease and respondent No. 1 regularly received the rent even up to the current year 1973.

5. The learned Judge had originally framed seven issues but on a later date framed issue No. 8 relating to the validity of the unregistered lease deed. He held that the document was inadmissible in evidence and could not be looked into.

6. The provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act as also Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act make it compulsory that lease of immovable property from year to year or for any term exceeding one year can be made only by a registered instrument.

Section 49 of the Registration Act, however, contains a proviso which is as follows :-

"Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act. 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of part performance of a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument."

7. This being a suit for possession by a lessor, the applicant/defendant who was admittedly in possession by virtue of the unregistered lease deed, could take shelter to protect his possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act Proviso to Section 49 specifically permits admission of an unregistered document for the purposes of Sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. It is true that the applicant/defendant will not be able to claim any right under the terms of the lease but he will be entitled to prove the document as a contract for the purposes of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act In A. Razak Sab v. H. K. Gopal Setty. AIR 1974 Mys 7, while considering a similar document the High Court held that the document could be relied on as evidence to prove possession as tenant. The Mysore High Court in the above case followed Rana Vidya Bhushan Singh v. Rati Ram. (1969) 1 SCWR 341. In Rajendra Nath Sarkar v. Gour Gopal Ghosh, AIR 1971 Cal 163, it was held that a deed of transfer is admissible in evidence in proof of part performance despite requirements for its registration. The Calcutta High Court was dealing with a provision under the Bengal Tenancy Act (Section 26) which is analogous to Section 17 (1) (d) of the Registration Act and Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.

8. It is clear that the learned lower Court erred in holding that the unregistered lease deed was totally inadmissible even to prove a plea under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act