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, erroneousl