1. Abdul Rahman brought this suit on the 1st of June 1916 to recover the site of a house. He alleged that there was an agreement of the 8th of May 1368 whereby the defendant had contracted to pay eight annas a year as the rent of the site. The case presented DO difficulty if the kabuliyat of the 8th of May 1S68 could be receivable in evidence provided, of course, the Court was of opinion that the document was a genuine one. In this appeal that has been the substantial matter raised and our attention has been drawn to Section 17 of Act XX of 1866, which was the Statute governing the reception or rejection of the document of the 8th of May 1868. The terms of the kabuliyat have been read to us. Shortly, they are to the effect that the Zamindar let the site to Sheo Prasad on a payment of eight annas a year and incidental obligations but the kabuliyat provided that if the eight annas was not paid in any one year, or if the tenant failed to make the incidental payments for marriages et cetra, the lease would thereby some to an end. Furthermore, the lease would also come to an end if the lessee did not conduct himself properly towards the Zemindar. Therefore, when the terms of the lease are looked at one sees that though in fact it might continue for an undefined number of years, there was no certainty that it would last beyond the term of one year. Therefore, it did not come within the classification of Section 17(d) as being a lease for a term exceeding one year. That being so, it was not a document which had compulsorily to be registered. It was receivable in evidence and establishes, in our opinion, the right of the plaintiff to maintain and succeed in this action, Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed with costs.