The main legal point established is that parol evidence cannot be admitted to prove a transaction affecting immovable property that requires registration under the Registration Act.

Devadoss, J.

1. The first point raised by Mr. Ramadoss in the two connected appeals (Second Appeals Nos. 848 and 849 of 1922) is that the lower Courts have gone wrong with regard to the finding that the property was purchased benami for the partnership in the name of the plaintiff in Suit No. 206 of 1917 (Second Appeal No. 848). This is a question of fact and the lower Courts have found that the plaint property was purchased in the name of Subba Rao plaintiff-appellant in Second Appeal No. 848, for the benefit of partnership. There is nothing in this contention.

2. The second contention is that Exhibit III which is an unregistered deed of release should not have been received in evidence and that no parol evidence should have been admitted to prove the transaction evidenced by Exhibit III. The contention of Mr. Ramadoss is that under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, parol evidence is not admissible to prove the terms of an agreement reduced to writing, Section 91 is "When the terms of ft contract; or of a grant, or of any disposition of property have been reduced to the form of a document etc., no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained." Subba Rao, the appellant in Second Appeal No. 848 was a partner along with two others and the partnership carried on business in timber. Owing to disagreement between the partners, Subba Rao retired in 1906. He executed Exhibit III releasing his rights in the partnership in favour of J. V. Subbarao. The first respondent in both the appeals purchased the plaint property from this J. V. Subbarao in 1910. Sri Ram Subba Rao has brought Suit No. 206 of 1917 for possession of the property on the ground that he is solely entitled to it. The appellant in Second Appeal No. 849 is a decree-holder who attached the plaint property as if it belonged to Sri Ram Subba Rao. The first respondent in that appeal filed a claim petition which was ordered in his favour. Thereupon the appellant in Second Appeal No. 849 of 1922 brought the suit (Original Suit No. 65 of 1917). Both the Courts have found that the plaint property was purchased for the benefit of partnership in the name of Sri Rama Subba Rao. The question is whether the District Munaif and Subordinate Judge were right in allowing parol evidence to prove the relinquishment of the right of Sri Ram Subba Rao to J. V. Subba Rao. Seeing that the arrangement was reduced to writing, it is contended that the document ought to have been registered as it affected immovable property which the partnership possessed, namely, the plaint house, and under the release Sri Ram Subba Rao purported to release his right in the immovable property and, therefore, it ought to be registered, and not being registered, it is not admissible in evidence. The first respondent in the appeals claims under the sale-deed Exhibit 16 which makes specific mention of the document as giving a right to the vendors to sell the whole property to the respondent. It was attempted to be argued on behalf of the respondent in Second Appeal No. 848 of 1922 and the first respondent in Second Appeal No. 849 of 1922 that the release deed did not cover the immovable property belonging to the partnership. But from Exhibit 16 it is quite dear that Exhibit III was intended to cover the immovable property belonging to the partnership. That being so, that question is whether the lower Courts were right in allowing parol evidence to be adduced to prove the transaction. Where an agreement or any other transaction is reduced to writing and under which, right to immovable property is affected, such writing ought to be registered. Section 17 of the Registration Act requires all non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or ex