The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for registration of lease agreements under the Registration Act and the inadmissibility of unregistered lease agreements as evidence of the transaction affecting immovable property.

1. Opinion.--We answer the question referred in the negative. It is immaterial whether possession has passed or not in accordance with the agreement. It is clear that the decision of the Full Bench in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Narayana Reddi I.L.R. (1894) Mad. 456 does not cover the point. As is explained in the order of reference what was held in Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Naraycma Reddi I.L.R. (1894) Mad. 456 was that a kabuliat signed by the lessee but inadmissible to prove the lease for want of registration was admissible to prove the karar or the agreement to lease which preceded it. The decision in Konduri Srinivasa Charyulu v. Gotteemukkala Venkatardju (1907) 17 Mad. 218 would seem to have proceeded upon a misapprehension of the Full Banch case. The learned Judges who decided it assumed that the Full Bench case was a suit for damages for the breach of an agreement in writing to let which was unregistered though compulsorily, registrable. They held and in our opinion rightly that there was no distinction between a suit for specific performance of such an agreement and one for damages for the breach of it The learned Judges merely applied, as we venture to think, erroneously the decision of the Full Bench to the case before them. They did not discuss the provisions of the Registration Act. Mr. Justice Boddam who was a party to this decision took the opposite view in Venkata Narasimha v. Seshayya Second Appeal No. 525 of 1903 (unreported) sitting with Mr. Justice Sankaran-Nair. The judgment of Subramania Ayyar and Miller, JJ., in Subbarayudu v. Narasimha Row Second Appeal No. 973 of 1904 (unrepotred) is open to the same observation as the decision in Konduri Srinivasa Charyulu v. Gotteemukkala Venkataraju (1907) 17 Mad. 218. Our attention was invited to the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Miller in Bangirayya v. Jagannitha Raju Second Appeal No. 979 of 1904 (unreported) The document in that case was not an agreement to lease. There the instrument recited a request by the executant and an agreement by the other party to give certain lands to her and an actual grant by the same, and contained a promise to minage the lands and enjoy them subject to certain terms. The operative part of the instrument was held to require registration. The question was whether for want of registration it was admissible to prove the recital. The learned Judges held that the document was admissible to prove the recital, i.e., the admission by the plaintiff of the existence of an agreement to give some lands to the plaintiff which itself was not in writing or at all events did not require registration. But there are certain observations in their judgment which have been pressed upon us. After referring to Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Narayana Reddi I.L.R. (1801) Mad. 456 and Konduru Srinivasa Charyulu v. Gotteemukkaia Venkataraju (1907) 17 M.L. 218 the learned Judges observe "that an agreement to lease Immovable property is not actually a transaction affecting land unless in cases where by the agreement itself a right in the land is created" and that "on that ground it may be held that evidence can be given of such an agreement by means of an unregstered document which is compulsorily registrable." We do not think this can be regarded as an adjudication on the question which has been referred to us. The decision in Satyendra Nath Bose v. Anil Chandra Ghose 14 C.W.N. 65 is that of a single Judge sitting on the Original Side. He simply followed the decision in Konduri Srinivasa Charyulu v. Gotteemukkaia Venkataroju (1907) 17 M.L. 218. As regards the suggestion made in that case that a lease is the sale of a limited interest and that an agreement to lease stands on the same footing as an agreement to sell pro tanto, the learned Judge would seem to have overlooked the fact that the legal incidents of the two transactions are entirely different. An agreement to lease is expressly included in the definition of lease in the Registrati