( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 141-A of 1971 dated 6th March 1972, the appellant-defendants vhave preferred this appeal

( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in-the Court of Additional Civil Judge Class II, Basoda, for possession and mesne profits, against the appellant-defendants with the averment that he was the Bhumiswami of survey Nos. 7 and 59 measuring 8 bighas and 2 biswas of village Banwa, which he mortgaged with the defendants for Rs. 600/- only for a period of five years. After the stipulated period of five years, the plaintiff wanted to redeem the mortgage to which the defendants refused.

( 3 ) THE appellants/defendants repelled the case of the plaintiff, contested the suit and pleaded that in Samvat 2020, the plaintiff executed a 'patta' (Ext D-1) for a period of five years. The defendants further pleaded that they have acquired the rights of Bhumiswami by operation of law and cannot be ejected from their lawful possession.

( 4 ) THE trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and answered the issues thus: 1. The plaintiff did not mortgage the suit land with the defendants for Rs. 600/- on 15-3-1964. On the contrary, it was given to defendants on a lease of five years on 22-2-1964; 2. The defendants, thus, have acquired the rights of an occupancy tenant of the suit land

( 5 ) THE plaintiff challenged these findings in the first appeal in the first appellate Court, and that Court reversed these findings. It is the defendants who now challenge the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court under S. 100, Civil P. C. The first appellate Court in the impugned judgment held that exhibit D-1, filed and relied upon by the defendants, was not admissible in evidence, because it was a lease for a period of five years and cannot be read in evidence even for collateral purposes. The first appellate Court thus, decreed the suit for redemption and upheld the plea of mortgage.

( 6 ) SHRI K. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that (i) Ext. D-1 is not a lease because it is not signed by both the parties; (ii) even if Ext. D-1 is considered to be a lease, then by virtue of S. 117, T. P. Act, it is not required to be registered; (iii) even if it is required to be registered, it can be read in evidence for ascertaining the nature of possession, that is, for collateral purposes, and (iv) an oral mortgage is not permissible in law, when the valuation of the mortgage is Rs. 600/- by virtue of the provisions of S. 59, T. P. Act.

( 7 ) SHRI Arun Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent, fairly conceded that S. 17, Registration Act, excluded the operation of S. 117, T. P. Act. He has further repelled the contentions of Shri Gupta and added that the finding that it is a mortgage is a finding of fact, by the first appellate Court, because this finding is solidly based upon the fact that the nature of possession of the defendants recorded in the annual village papers is that they are in possession as mortgagees. ( 8 ) THE first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that Ext. D-1, on the basis of which the defendants claim to be the tenants of the suit land for five years, in view of the law laid down in the case of Smt. Dhana Bai, 1972 MPLJ 227 , a Division Bench judgment of this Court, is not admissible in evidence. The first appellate Court has further held, unlike the trial Court, that Ext. D-1 cannot be read in evidence even for collateral purposes, i. e. , for looking to the nature of possession. In Smt. Dhana Bai's case (supra), it was held that rent note from year to year or for a term exceeding one year requires registration under S. 17 (1) (d), Registration Act, as it is a lease within the meaning of S. 107, T. P. Act. It was further held that a document compu