1. In the course of the argument it was agreed that the only document as to which any question of registration arises is Exhibit VI, the kabuliat signed by the plaintiff and given to the defendant.
2. The question is whether that document although not registered can be admitted in evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff's action was founded on an alleged title in virtue of a lease granted by the defendant and his case were that as lessee he had been unlawfully ejected from the demised land, there can be no doubt that the document (VI) could not be admitted in evidence. The plaintiff would then be seeking to use it as evidence of a transaction affecting immovable property. But it is clear that that is not the case made in the plaint. The plaint sets out the agreement for a lease of the village which was to run from Fasli 1299 and last for five years. It is stated that certain things were done in pursuance of the agreement, among other things, that the plaintiff was put in possession. Then it is charged that the defendant did not register the kabuliat and improperly deprived the plaintiff of possession. The cause of action alleged is the failure on the part of the defendant to act up to the karar (i.e, the agreement for a lease), and the improper resumption of the village.
3. It is clear that the plaintiff does not assert his title under the incomplete lease and that, he does complain of the breaeh of contrast on the part of the defendant in refusing to register the kabuliat and give him a cowle and also in disturbing his possession. The act of the defendant in thus disturbing the plaintiff's possession is merely a part of the defendant's conduct which the plaintiff complains of as a breach of the contract made with him. It is not an essential part, for, if the plaintiff had never been in possession, he would have had his right of action.
4. Having regard to the language of Section 49 of the Registration Act, we think there is no doubt that the kabuliat although not registered is admissible in evidence to prove the contract. We do not think it is necessary to refer to the cases cited except the case in Hurjivan Virji v. Jamsetji Nowroji I. L. R. 9 B 63 as to which it has to be observed that although the plaint included a prayer for damages, the judgment makes no reference to it. The decision cannot therefore be cited as an authority against the admissibility of a document in this case.
5. In our opinion the answer to the question referred should be that the document may be admitted to prove the contract and the damages occasioned by the breach of it.