1. The plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 1 bad executed an istemrari lease in his favour for consideration and registered it and put him in possession, but that he had lost the document and been subsequently dispossessed of a part of the lands sold: he, therefore, sued for declaration of title and recovery of possession of some lands and confirmation of possession in respect of others. The defendant's plea that she had executed the document under it misapprehension has been found against her. Her further plea was that the consideration had not been paid and she had taken back the document from the Registration Office and never parted with possession but that the document was lost in a flood. The lower Appellate Court has found that there was no payment of consideration, no delivery of possession and no delivery of the document. It is contended before us that the title of the plaintiff was complete by the registration of the document and he is entitled to a decree even if no consideration was paid and no delivery of possession effected, and that the delivery of the document was not at all material. It is not correct to say that the execution and the registration are always sufficient to pass title; see Mauladan v. Rughunandan Pershad Singh 27 C. 7. It is always a matter of the intention of the parties. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge says: 'Now even assuming that there was the delivery of the patta it amply appears from the certified copy of the patta itself and the oral evidence on the plaintiff's side that it was the intention of the parties that there should be immediate payment of the consideration money', and then finds that the evidence as to the payment of the consideration is unreliable. This being so, we think the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the transaction was not complete and no title passed. In this view of the case it is immaterial whether the landlord recognised the plaintiff and when he did so. We dismiss the appeal with costs.