The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of registration for documents conveying an interest in immoveable property and the influence of party conduct on entitlement to relief.

Collins, C.J.

1. This Second Appeal No. 319 of 1894 was originally heard before SHEPHARD and BEST, J.J., and those learned Judges disagreed in the conclusion they arrived at; and in consequence of BEST, J., having left the Court, the Letters Patent appeal had to be heard before three other Judges.

2.The principal point in dispute was whether the yadast, dated 1st January 1891,created an interest in immoveable property, and, if so, whether it could be used as evidence, not being registered. The yadast is as follows: "In respect of the transaction of business heretofore taken on contract from Madura Pattamars in fasli 1294 by me and A.N. Meenakshisundaram Settiar Avergal, I have paid, on 16th December 1890 in current fasli 1300, value for the said Meenakshisundaram Settiar half share, excluding my share, in the karuvela, velvala, margosa and manjanati trees, etc., in Pattambudur tank to the north of the said village, and in the gum (resin),karuvela nuts, grass, korai, etc., standing thereon; and been enjoying the same till this day. As I have settled a value of Rs. 3,400 for the said two shares, so that you may cut and enjoy the trees, etc., and the grass, korai, gum, karuvela nut, etc., on bank and the bed of the said tank from this day till the close of fasli 1304, and executed a yadast to you on receipt of a note from you promising to pay within a period of six months, you will enjoy in the said tank, as mentioned above. Should there be any trees or other materials whatever in the said tank on the first day of fasli 1305, the above said person shall not interfere (with it)."

3. It appears to me that there can be no doubt but that the yadast does convey an interest in immoveable property: the contrary proposition is not arguable. It has long been settled that an agreement for the sale and purchase of growing grass, growing timber or underwood, or growing fruit, not made with a view to their immediate severance and removal from the soil and delivery as chattels be the purchaser, is a contract for the sale of an interest in land. I, therefore, hold that the yadast does convey an interest in immoveable property and is not receivable in evidence being unregistered.

4. The next question is to what relief (if any) is the plaintiff entitled. For the reasons given by SUBRAMANIA AYYAR, J., in his judgment, I am of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. I would, therefore, reverse the decree passed in plaintiffs favour and dismiss the suit. The other Judges having decided that each party should pay his own costs throughout, I am not inclined to differ from them on that point.

Subramania Ayyar, J.

5. The first question argued in this case was whether the document, dated the 1st of January 1891, found to have been executed by the plaintiff to the first defendant, was rightly held to be inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

6. The determination of the question depends upon the soundness or unsoundness of the contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiff, viz., first, that the transaction evidenced by the said document amounted to a lease of the plaintiffs interest in the tank of the village of Pattambadur mentioned therein for a term of a little more than four years, and secondly, if that contention fails--that the document created in favour of the said defendant an interest in immoveable property of the value of more than one hundred rupees.

7. First, as to the contention that there was a lease, it is to be observed that, to constitute such a transfer, it is essential that exclusive possession of the property which is the subject of the transfer, should be intended to be vested in the transferee (Wood fall on Landlord and Tenant, 14th edition, page 129). If the possession is, however, not of that character, the transaction, whatever else it may be, is not a lease. This being clear, we have to see whether the instrument in the present ease secured to the defendant any possession, and, if so, exclusive possess