Richard Garth, C.J.
1. If the application of the defendants was accepted by the plaintiff by writing the word 'granted' in the margin, we think that the instrument in question was a lease and therefore required registration. Even if it was an agreement for a lease, it also, in our opinion, required registration; because, coupled with possession by the defendants, its effect clearly was to give the latter an interest in the property for the term mentioned in the doul; and it does not appear that any other document to complete the transaction was contemplated by the parties.
2. This view seems to us perfectly consistent with the two decisions, which are mentioned in the reference-the cases of Choonee Mundur v. Chundee Lall Dass (14 W. R., 178) and Bibee Meheroonnissa v. Abdool Gunee (17 W. R., 509), because, in those cases, the application of the tenant was not accepted in writing. It was a mere proposal, which was accepted, if at all, orally, in which case the entire lease or agreement not being in writing, did not require registration.
3. In disposing of the second appeal, the only doubt which has occurred to us is, whether, as a matter of fact, the word 'granted,' which appears upon the document, was in itself the acceptance of the application, or whether the application had been previously granted orally by the plaintiff or his agent, and the word 'granted' was afterwards written by the plaintiff for his own purposes.
4. Certain it is, that the document was not returned to the defendants, but was retailed in the plaintiff's own keeping.
5. It has been suggested to us that the defendants had a duplicate proposal in their own hands duly accepted in the same way by the plaintiff. If they had, there will of course be an end of the question.
6. We think that the costs in this Court and in the Court below should abide the result.