In Re: Vadasseri Tharawattil Karnavan and Manager Ittichathara Valia Mannadiar

Rajamannar, C.J.—We agree with the learned Judge, Mack J. and with the trial Judge that Ex. A-l, the raji decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1920

on the file of the Sub Court of South Malabar at Falgliat is inadmissible in cvi-device because it was not registered. The case of the plaintiff was

that under that raji the defendants 1 and 2 were allowed to be in possession of the properties as permanent tenants subject to a condition that they

should not mortgage or assign or otherwise alienate the properties, and impliedly there should be a forfeiture if there was any alienation. The suit

was brought on the ground that the defendants had alienated the properties.

As the raji was not registered, it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot rely upon any clause in it which gave him a right to forfeit the permanent lease

on alienation. This is in effect what the learned Judge, Mack J. has held. Me agreed with the trial court in dismissing the plaintiff''s suit.

Mr. C. K. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the appellant contended that if Ex. A-l, the raji decree was inadmissible in evidence, there was

no proof of a permanent lease. We do not think that this argument is open to the appellant in view of the statement in his plaint that the suit

properties were allowed to be held by defendants 1 and 2 subject only to the enjoyment of ten paras of paddy and one rupee per annum. The

appellant''s counsel however objected to this statement alone being taken into account without the other statement that there was a stipulation that

the properties should not be alienated. He relied upon the rulings in Motabhoy Mulla Essabhoy v. Muiji, ILR 39 Bom 399: AIR 1915 PC 2 and

Birendranath Mallik v. Brahma Brata Ray, ILR 1946 1 Cal 652 . But these decisions have no bearing on the facts of this case. Tn these cases

there was what may be called a conditional admission, and it was ruled that the admission alone without the condition could not be pressed against

the person making the admission. In this case there is no such conditional admission. There is a categorical statement of the grant of what in effect

must be deemed to be, a permanent lease and there is also a further statement as regards an additional stipulation which is in the nature of a

restraint on alienation. While the grant of a permanent lease was practically submitted by the defendants, this stipulation was not accepted by them.

There is also another ground on which the plaintiff''s suit should fail and that is the ground on which the trial Judge dismissed the suit. Though Ex.

A-l was inadmissible for want of registration, it is now well established that such a document can be looked into for other & collateral purposes,

particularly to ascertain the nature of the possession with a party obtained under that document. The leading case on the subject is the decision of

the Privy Council in Varada Piliai v. Jeevarathmammal, ILR 43 Mad.244: AIR 1919 PC 44 Now it is quite clear that the possession of the

defendants from the date of the raji in 1924 was possession as permanent lessees. Such possession they continued to have for over the statutory

period and therefore they must be deemed to have acquired rights as perpetual lessees by ad verse possession. Mr. Viswanatha Aiyar contended

that this rule of law will not apply to the case of acquisition of the right of permanent lessee. We do not see any logical reason why it should be so.

The two decisions cited by him in Datto Shivram Gosavi Vs. BaBa Saheb Malhar Deshpande, and Jnanchandra Dutta Vs. Mahim Chandra Das, ,

have no application. We agree with the learn ed Judge that the plaintiff''s suit must fail. The ap peal is dismissed.