JUDGMENT

Le Rossignol, J. - The plaintiff came into Court on the strength of a document by which he alleged that Sarb Dial, defendant No. 1. on the 8th May 1917, acknowledged receipt of Rs. 25 as earnest money and agreed to lease to plaintiff 2 big has 14 biswas of land for five years on an annual rental of Rs. 180. He alleged that defendant No. 1, instead of executing a formal lease in his favour, had leased the land to defendant No. 2 and had given him possession. He further alleged that defendant No. 2 had full knowledge of the agreement with plaintiff and he prayed for possession of the land and for an order to compel defendant No. 1 to execute a lease in accordance with the terms of the agreement. He asked in the alternative for damages of Rs. 1,000 against defendant No. 1.

2. The first Court found that both defendants had joined in a fraud on the plaintiff and decreed him possession for five years, and the District Judge on appeal confirmed the decree holding that it was unnecessary that a formal lease in plaintiff's favour should be executed.

3. In second appeal it is urged that the document on which the plaintiff's claim is based is not merely a receipt for earnest money but is an agreement to lease, that it is inadmissible in evidence to prove the contract and it should have been registered and that consequently no oral evidence in support of the contract is admissible. In our opinion the contention for the appellant must prevail. In his plaint the plaintiff refers to the document as embodying the agreement between himself and defendant No. 1, and it is obvious that it is more than a mere receipt. The terms of the lease, its duration, the annual rent and the date on which possession is to be given, are set forth in detail in this document, and there can be no doubt that it is an agreement to lease. Now, under Section 2(7) of the Registration Act a lease includes an agreement to lease. In this respect an agreement to lease must be discriminated from an agreement to sell, and under Section 17(1)(d) of the same Act all leases of immoveable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, must be registered. The lease in question, reserving as it does an annual rent of Rs. 180, does not belong to a class of leases which may be exempted by the Local Government under the proviso to Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act.

4. In this view the plaintiff's suit is unsupported by any evidence and must be dismissed. We accordingly accept the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.