G.K. MITTER, J.

(1) THE main question in these three appeals is, whether reception of secondary evidence of a written agreement to grant a lease is barred by the provisions of S. 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act.

(2) THE relevant facts are as follows. There is a rice mill in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, which was formerly owned by the appellant along with Respondents 3, 4 and 5. The mill was built on a site with an area of Ac. 1-75 by one K. N. Raju who had obtained a lease thereof from the guardian of Respondents 1 and 2. It was executed on 21/12/1941, and was to expire on 17/07/1956. The appellant and Respondents 3, 4 and 5 were successors-in-interest of the said leasehold rights. Respondents 1 and 2 served notice of ejectment on the lessees to quit the site and deliver possession on the expiry of the said lease.

(3) ACCORDING to the lessees there were negotiations for a new lease. Respondents 1 and 2 demanded enhanced rent and an agreement was ultimately arrived at on 6/01/1957, between the appellant and Respondent No. 5 for themselves and on behalf of Respondents 3 and 4 on the one hand and Respondents 1 and 2 on the other for grant of a new lease for a period of thirty years commencing on 1/01/1957. The rent was fixed at Rs. 540.00 per annum payable every two months. There was an option given to the lessors to purchase the rice mill at a price to be fixed by the President of the Rice Mills Association but in case the said option was not exercised, the lessees were entitled to remove the structures of the mill. The lessees were to continue in possession and a deed of lease was to be executed and registered within a short time. The agreement was written on two stamp papers of Re. 0/12/0 each and signed by the appellant and the 5th respondent on the one hand and Respondent No. 1 on his own behalf and on behalf of respondent No. 2. The document was delivered to the respondent No. 1 after execution.

(4) THE appellants further case is that thereafter he effected considerable improvements to the mill costing about Rs. 30,000.00 and purchased the shares of Respondents 3 and 4 in the said mill but respondent No. 5 who had originally joined the appellant in the suit for specific performance of the said agreement sold his share in or about September, 1965, to respondent No. 6 herein.

(5) ON 12/03/1957, Respondents 1 and 2 instituted a suit O. S. No. 81 of 1957, in the court of the District Munsif of Bhimavaram against the appellant and Respondents 3, 4 and 5 besides certain other persons who were in occupation of the site, for recovery of possession after removing the rice mill and structures standing thereon on the basis that on the expiry of the old lease they had become entitled to possession. Respondents 1 and 2 instituted another suit O/S. No. 100 of 1957 on 4/04/1957, in the same court claiming damages from the appellant and respondent No. 5 for failure to deliver the site from 1/01/1957, till date of delivery of possession. In Paragraph 6 of the plaint in this suit they expressly stated that they would file a separate suit to recover the future mesne profits. The total claim in this suit was computed at Rs. 4,700.00 being the amount due for 94 days from 1/01/1957 to 4/04/1957, at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per day. On 5/04/1958, the appellant and respondent No. 5 instituted 0. S. No. 92 of 1958. against Respondents 1 to 4 praying for specific performance of the agreement to lease mentioned above with a direction that the Respondents 1 and 2 should execute the lease deed. By ther written statement filed in O. S No. 92 of 1958, Respondents 1 and 2 denied the execution of the agreement to lease while in the two suits for recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupation the appellant and respondent No. 5 pleaded the aforesaid agreement for lease in defence and submitted that they were entitled to remain in possession without any liability as to damages.

(6) THE three suits wer