Leach, C.J.

1. The question in this appeal is, whether a compromise decree which operates as a lease requires registration.

2. In O.S. No. 25 of 1929 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad 21 fishermen sued for a declaration that they were entitled by custom to a right of fishing and to use certain parts of the foreshore at Mantapam for the purposes of drying, curing, storing and selling the fish caught, beaching and storing their fishing canoes and boats, and hauling and drying their fishing nets. They also asked for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with these operations. The suit was compromised and on 17th November 1930, a decree was passed in the terms agreed upon. There is no doubt that the decree was intended to operate as a lease. The word "lease" was used in the decree itself and the payments which the plaintiffs were to make to the defendant were referred to as "rent." The plaintiffs were to enjoy the rights claimed by them for a period of 21 years, whereupon the full enjoyment of the foreshore was to revert to the defendant. The plaintiffs were to pay in the aggregate Rs. 7500 per annum, based on a rate of Rs. 250 per boat per year.