1. This appeal must be dismissed. The first point that has been made is that, though this document which created the permanent tenure required registration under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, yet, because the land was a land situated outside the town and let out for the purpose of growing thatching grass, therefore, the interest of the plaintiff that was a permanent interest could have been created without a registered document. I do not agree with that view. This is not a raiyatee holding, nor is it one in which the plaintiff could have acquired a right of occupancy. It is merely a permanent tenure of this small piece of land, and one cannot get a permanent tenure under the Bengal Tenancy Act or under any other Act except by a registered document. The learned Vakil who has argued the appeal on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant thinks that whenever the land is an agricultural land one can get a permanent tenure without a registered document. It is quite true that one can get an interest as a raiyat by way of occupancy.
2. The other point as to the case of adverse possession has got no foundation at all. The plaintiff's case is that she entered upon the property as a tenant. She has not been able to prove that she was a permanent tenant, because the law requires that in such a case the lease should be registered. She says that her case is that at the time she entered into possession as tenant her possession became adverse. Obviously, that is not so. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
3. I agree.