1. This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The plaintiffs-respondents claim to be the owners of the house in question. The vendors (defendants-respondents) transferred a share in the house by a sale-deed in 1910 in favour of the present defendant-appellant. The latter had also in the year 1905 acquired a share in the house at an auction-sale. The private sale merely conveyed to him the remaining shares in the house. The plaintiffs' case is that they are the owners of the house, that the vendors are persons who had no right whatsoever to transfer the property and that the appellant-defendant acquired no title by his purchase. It appears that in the year 1865, two documents were executed one by Mathura Prasad and Musammat Gujra, and the other by Imami and Ghure. Each document is a counterpart of the other. If these documents or either of them is admissible in evidence, then the plaintiffs' case is clearly proved and the present appeal must fail. If these documents are neither of them admissible in evidence, it is clear that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership. The Court of first instance held that the document executed by Imami and Ghure was inadmissible in evidence in that it was a lease which required registration under Act XVI of 1864, and not having been registered was inadmissible in evidence in view of the terms of Section 13 of that Act. The lower Appellate Court held that this document was not a lease at all but a kabuliyat which required no registration, was admissible in evidence, and decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The document itself, is somewhat difficult of description. It contains a statement by Imami and Ghure that the house belongs to Mathura Prasad and Musammat Gujra that they, Imami and Ghure, were residents therein and that they had come to a certain agreement with the owners of the house. That agreement was that Imami and Ghure were to live in the house from generation to generation; that neither they nor the owners of the house would ever transfer it by mortgage or sale; that if they ever gave up the house, then Mathura Prasad and Musammat Gujra were to take possession of it, and at the end of the document there is a statement that there are certain shops attached to the house, but that Imami and Ghure had no concern with those shops, and that Mathura Prasad and Musammat Gujra can do as they please therewith. The document executed by Mathura Prasad and Musammat Gujra is to the same effect. It declares that the house belongs to them; that Imami and Ghure were residents therein; and that they had come, to the agreement set forth above, and in respect of the shops, Mathura Prasad and Musammat Gujra stated in the document that they belonged to them and that it was in their option to do as they pleased therewith. It is not known under what circumstances these documents were executed. One thing is clear, that if they are evidence of an agreement between the parties as to the terms and conditions on which Imami and Ghure were to hold and occupy the house, under the Stamp Act of 1862, Article 3, Schedule A, these documents ought to have been stamped as a lease of the same property on the same terms and conditions. When, however, we look at the Articles providing for leases in that same Schedule, we see that provision is not made for any lease without consideration in which no rent is reserved or in which no premium is paid. Presumably the Article which would apply would be Article 36; Deed of any kind not otherwise charged or expressly exempted from stamp duty, Re. 1.' The documents are on two-anna stamps. Whatever names may be applied to these documents, there can be very little doubt that they do declare the interest and the right of Imami and Ghure in the bouse in question, and that the question of registration depends really upon the value of that right on the date of the execution of the documents. The Courts below have not come to any decision in respect to this valuation. It is clear that if it was less than Rs. 100 then no registration was necessary and the documents are admissible in evidence. On the other hand if the value of the right was more than Rs. 100, then the documents ought to have been registered and under Section 13 of Act XVI of 1864 would not be admissible in evidence. We, therefore, remit the following issue to the Court below: What was the value of the right of residence of Imami and Ghure in the house in question as declared by the document of the 27th of May 1865? The value of the house at that time will, no doubt, be some indication of the value of the right of residence in question.
2. The parties will be allowed to give further evidence on the point and objections may be filed ten days after the receipt of the finding.