1. If the document in question was nothing more than a mere relinquishment presented by a tenant, the first defendant, to his landlord, the plaintiff, under Section 12 of Act VIII of 1865, which authorises the former to relinquish his holding at the end of any revenue year by a writing signed in the presence of witnesses irrespective of the wishes of the landlord in the matter, there can be no doubt that the document did not require to be registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. But that the document was one given for a consideration which moved from the plaintiff to the first defendant, viz., the waiver by the former of his right to the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 600 due at the time of the relinquishment is clear from the terms of the instrument itself. It is true that the passage in the plaint, upon which stress was laid on behalf of the plaintiff, suggests that the paper in question had been delivered to the servants of the plaintiff before he signified his consent to forego his claim to the 600 rupees. But neither the fact that the plaintiff accepted the first defendant's offer only after the paper, which was to operate as evidence of the relinquishment, had been put into the hands of his servants, nor the circumstance that the acceptance was not in writing is at all material. The moment the offer was accepted the paper which had been parted with by the first defendant conditionally, as it were, became fully operative between the parties to the arrangement and extinguished the interests which the first defendant had as a tenant. Therefore the conclusion of the lower Courts that the relinquishment was not a mere abandonment under Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act by the first defendant of his right to occupy the land, but a contract between him and the plaintiff, which fell within Section 17 of the Registration Act, and which was, therefore, inadmissible for want of registration, appears to us to be correct.
2. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.