1. Thera have been drawn to our notice two decisions Jarip Khan v. Durfa Dewa . 1912 15 IC 476. Telam Pramanik v. Adu Sheik . 1913 18 IC 791., which were decided after the date of the judgment under appeal and which therefore, have not been referred to by the Subordinate Judge. Those cases appear to establish that the lease in this case should not have been admitted for registration under Section 85, clause 2 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and that the lease is a nullity. That being so, although, as the first Court has held, the plaintiff after the death of his guardian accepted rent from the defendants, he could not thereby affect a ratification of the lease which was initially void. The appellant has undertaken, however, to refund to the defendants the sum of Rs. 85 received by him as a bonus for the lease and to refund that amount before taking possession of the property.
2. This undertaking is recorded and must be given effect to. The appeal must, therefore, be decreed and the decree of the Munsif restored, subject to the undertaking by the appellant that he will not attempt to get khas possession until he has refunded the money which he has taken from the defendants. As the appeal is decided upon a question which is one of doubt and upon decisions which have been reported since the date of the judgment under appeal, the order which I think we should make as to costs in this Court and in the lower Appellate Court is that the parties will bear their own costs. The order as to costs of the first Court will stand.
V.B/R.K
3. Appeal allowed.