Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.


Calcutta High Court
Bhobani Mahto vs Shibnath Para on 25 March, 1886
Equivalent citations: (1886) ILR 13 Cal 113
Author: M A Agnew
Bench: Mitter, Agnew


JUDGMENT

Mitter and Agnew, JJ.

1. The question raised in this case is whether the zur-i-peshgi lease upon which the plaintiff relied is a lease which required registration. It was executed in September 1866. The Registration Act then in force was Act XX of 1866. Section 17 says: “Instruments next hereinafter mentioned will be registered.” And the 4th Clause is to this effect: “Leases of immoveable property for any term exceeding one year.” The question before us is, whether the lease in this case was for any term exceeding one year. The lease was a zur-i-peshgi lease granted on the advance of a loan, and it is stipulated therein that it was in the first place to remain in force for one year; but then it goes on to provide that if the loan is not repaid it will continue in force; and the question therefore for our consideration is, whether a lease of this description comes within the words “leases of immoveable property for any term exceeding one year.” We think it does. It appears to us that the leases which were intended to be excluded from this 4th Clause were leases the term of which was one year certain. In this case the condition was that if the zur-i-peshgi money was not repaid the lease was to continue in force until the money was repaid, and therefore the term might exceed one yean The lease might, in fact, be in force for many years. So long as the money is not repaid it would not come to an end.

2. We think, therefore, that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the lease upon which the plaintiff relies required registration under Act XX of 1866.

We dismiss this appeal with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

73 queries in 0.328 seconds.