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 f