Pande, J.:— This is an appeal by defendants first party against the decree dated the 2nd December, 1943, of the Additional Subordinate Judge, second court, Patna, which affirmed the decree dated the 22nd February, 1943, of the Munsif of Barh.
The dispute related to 217 acres land bearing survey plot no. 178, khata no. 590 in mouza Paighambarpur Sahri, touzi no. 5963. Mathura Das, defendant second party is the 16 as proprietor of the mouza. There was a proceeding under section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure, on a trouble between the plaintiff and the defendants first party regarding possession over the land. That proceeding terminated in a favourable order for the defendants first party. The plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegation that in consequence of the adverse order in the said proceeding the defendants first party dispossessed him from the land. The plaintiff asked for a declaration of title and recovery of possession. His case was that the land was settled with him by the proprietor by an unregistered patta dated the 31st October, 1930, and he executed a registered kabuliat in favour of the landlord on the 1st November, 1938, and from the date of settlement he had all along been in possession of the land until dispossessed by the defendants first party on the strength of the order of the proceeding under section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure. The defendants first party set up title to the land on the basis of a sada Hukumnama dated the 3rd June, 1920, said to have been granted to him by one Ram Parsad, mokhtar-am of the proprietor. They asserted that from the date of settlement under the said Hukumnama they have all along been in possession of the land. Both the courts found that the pattas and kabuliats were genuine documents of bona fide transactions of settlement of the land with the plaintiff who had all along been in possession of the land from the time of the settlement until dispossessed in consequence of an adverse order in the proceeding under section 144. Code of Criminal Procedure. The courts further found that the Hukumnama relied upon by the defendant was a spurious document and that the defendant was not in possession of the land before. The contest between the party is concluded by the above concurrent findings of fact of the courts below.
It has been urged that in an action for ejectment the plaintiff, in order to succeed, must establish valid title to the property to evict the person in possession of it. It is said that in the present case the plaintiff bases his case of settlement of the land on an unregistered patta, which being a lease of an immoveable property requires registration under the provision of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. And section 49 of the Act provides that no document required by section 17 to be registered shall affect any immoveable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Therefore the plaintiff did not acquire any valid title to the land. In support of this contention reference is made to the decision in Maharani Janki Kuer v. Birj Bhikhan Ojha and Ramautar Singh v. Juthi Tatma. The latter case followed the former. The former case is an authority for the proposition that an agricultural lease which has been reduced to writing requires to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and if the document is not registered it cannot under section 49 be received in evidence of the lease, and in such a case section 91 of the Evidence Act debars other evidence of the lease being given. But in the same case his Lordship Dawson Miller, C.J, with whom Mullick, J. agreed further laid down: “If the subsequent acts of the parties themselves disclose a state of affairs consistent only with the existence of an agreement mutually recognized and acted upon as if the instrument were binding, then, although the written document may be defective as a valid and finally concluded agreement, such defects may be supplied by the subsequent actings and conduct of the parties.”
In that case the question for determination was the status of the respondent in regard to 7 bighas land. In the record of rights he was recorded as a tenant at a fixed rent while the appellant (landlord) contended that he was an occupancy raiyat of the land. The respondent relied upon a sanad dated 1882. Their Lordships held that the document was not a valid instrument in proof of finally concluded agreement, nevertheless it was admissible for a collateral purpose, e.g, to show the nature of the defendant's possession. It was pointed out that an agricultural lease of an immoveable property need not be in writing.
“It may be effected by oral agreement in which case no question of registration arises and the lease may be proved in the same way as any other verbal agreement, and even documentary evidence may be admissible in support of the oral agreement.”
It was found that the document, sanad, was genuine and the respondent had been in possession of the land as a tenant at fixed rent and had been paying rent accordingly. On these materials it was held that the defendants' status to the land as tenants at fixed rent had been established.
The present case is much stronger. Here the plaintiff no doubt claims settlement of the land on the basis of an unregistered patta, but it was followed by a registered kabuliat which was executed on the very next day. The kabuliat embodies all the terms of settlement mutually agreed between the parties. This kabuliat was accepted by the proprietors. In proof of its acceptance the respondent produced two receipts, Exhibits 7 and 7(a) for the years 1347 and 1348 and corresponding counterfoil from the landlord's sarishta and also examined the landlord who supported the plaintiff's story of settlement and possession over the land. The above documents were found by both the courts to be genuine. The courts also found that the defendant had been in possession of the land until dispossessed. Thus on the authority of the very case relied upon by the appellants the respondents' title to the land by virtue of the settlement is well established in law.
It has long been the common practice in this country, where no/patta is ordinarily executed, to treat a kabuliat, accepted by the lessor, as the instrument creating a tenancy, and that there is no question, that before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act a lease could be affected by an instrument signed by the lessee only and registered in cases where registration was compulsory [Syed Ajam Sahib v. Madura Sree Meenatchi Sundareswaral Devastenam; Akram Ali v. Durga Prasanna Roy Chowdhury, Raimoni Dassi v. Mathura Mohan Dey and Dinanath Kundu v. Janki Nath Ray(4)]. These cases further held that a registered kabuliat signed by the lessee and accepted by the lessor is sufficient to constitute a lease within the meaning of section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkrishna Jha v. Jainandan Jha(5) dissented from this view. In this case it was held that section 107 read with, section 105 of the Act clearly implies that the registered instrument must be executed by the lessor who is the transferor and as such registered kabuliat executed by a lessee in favour of the lessor and accepted by the latter either orally or by means of an unregistered document does not constitute a lease under section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. This was a case of lease of three villages to which the Transfer of Property Act applied. But the present case is one of agricultural lease to which the Transfer of Property Act has no application. Section 117 of the Act clearly provides that none of the provisions of Chapter V (which includes) sections 105 and 107 apply to leases for agricultural purposes. Khaja Mohamad Noor, J., one of the Judges of the Full Bench in his judgment stated: “Agricultural leases are also not affected by the point raised before us, inasmuch as they are not governed by the Transfer of Property Act”. Therefore the Full Bench decision does not, in my opinion, in any way affect the authority of the cases cited above in regard to agricultural leases.
The present lease being an agricultural lease is governed by the Bihar Tenancy Act. There is no provision in the Act which defines a lease or prescribes the mode for the creation of an agricultural lease. Therefore the long standing practice prevailing in this country to treat a kabuliat, executed by the lessee and accepted by the lessor, as the instrument creating a tenancy has not in any way been affected by the Transfer of Property Act. An agricultural lease may be made orally, and if the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties disclose that the lease so created was acted upon, the lease is a valid lease in law [Maharani Janki Kuer v. Birj Bhikhan Ojha; Giribala Dasi v. Dwarka Nath Mistri.] If the terms of settlement mutually agreed upon between the landlord and tenant are embodied in a kabuliat executed by the, lessee and registered in accordance with the provision of section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act is accepted by the landlord in the sense of acceptance of rent and grant of receipts to the tenants in acknowledgment of payment of rent, a valid agricultural lease is constituted in law. Therefore the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants is not sustainable. The, appeal must fail. I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal with cost.
Sinha, J.:— I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
K.D