Rajamannar, C.J.-We agree with the learned Judge, Mack, J., and with the trial Judge that Exhibit A-1, the raji decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1920 on the file of the Sub-Court of South Malabar at Palghat is inadmissible in evidence because it was not registered. The case of the plaintiff was that under that raji the defendants 1 and 2 were allowed to be in possession of the properties as permanent tenants subject to a condition that they should not mortgage or assign or otherwise alienate the properties and impliedly there should be a forfeiture if there was any alienation. The suit was brought on the ground that the defendants had alienated the properties.

As the raji was not registered, it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot rely upon any clause in it which gave him a right to forfeit the permanent lease on alienation. This is in effect what the learned Judge, Mack, J., has held. He agreed with the trial Court in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit.

Mr. C.K. Viswanatha Ayyar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that if Exhibit A-1, the raji decree, was inadmissible in evidence, there was no proof of a permanent lease. We do not think that this argument is open to the appellant in v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document