1. There is no admission by-defendants in the pleadings of any obligation to remove the nattu reeds and it cannot be held that the existence of this obligation is not in issue between the parties. The ruling in Chedamhatam Chetty v. Kurunalyavalwngopuly Taver 3 M.H.C.R. 342 has, therefore, no application.
2. It is contended for appellant that the lease-deed, though inadmissible as & lease-deed for want of registration, may nevertheless be received in evidence He prove a contract on the part of defendants to remove the reeds. -It is clear from the plaint that this alleged obligation was a condition of the, tenancy in consideration of which a low rent was fixed; and that the obligation cannot be dissociated from the other terms of the lease. To allow the lease-deed to be adduced in proof of this obligation would be to contravene the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. We have considered also whether secondary evidence might be adduced under Section 65 (6) of the Evidence Act in proof of the alleged admission in Exhibit A. It has, however, been explicitly laid down by this Court that such an evasion of the provisions of the Registration Act cannot be permitted. Vide Divethi Varada v. Krishnasawmi 6 M. 117 : 7 Ind. Jur. 76 and Sambayya v. Gangayya 13 M. 808.
4. We must dismiss the appeal.