Wazir Nonian vs Ram Prasad Lal and Others and Sham Bihari Singh and Others

Jwala Prasad, J.—This appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. It relates to two kathas of land bearing Survey Plot No. 961. The entry in the

Record of Rights shows the land as gair majruha of the maliks with a Kutchehri in the possession of the plaintiff, Ram Prasad Lal. The Kutchehri

consists of a house with an enclosure called khand. The khand is in dispute in the present case.

The finding of the Courts below is that the defendant took settlement of the khand in question on payment of Rs. 25 as salami to Ram Prasad

Lal. The defendant claimed the land on the basis of a verbal settlement for life made with him by the plaintiff on behalf of all the landlords. There is

no deed of settlement : far less is there any registered document. The terms of this settlement are stated by him in the following words:

It was settled that I would continue to be on the land, and after that the land would some into the possession of the maliks.

The defendant''s witness No. 4 stated that the settlement was for ever. The Court below accordingly held that the settlement was invalid u/s 107

of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires that a settlement for a term exceeding one year can only be made by a registered instrument. This

view of the learned Judge is assailed by the defendant-appellant and it is contended that the lease could be made by delivery of possession and for

that reference has been made to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act of 1908. No doubt, Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act has

indicated that Section 107, amongst others, of the Transfer of Property Act shall be read as supplemental to the Indian Registration Act, but the

law as to registration is the same under the latter Act as well; tide Clause (d) of Section 17. Therefore, the lease for life set up by the defendant

was invalid on account of its not having been made by means of a registered document. The view of the Court below is, therefore, correct and I

accordingly overrule the contention of the learned Vakil on behalf of the appellant.

The learned Judge has further held that the settlement was conditioned upon the defendant rendering service to the plaintiff and that, as

admittedly he refused to render the service demanded of him, he became a mere licensee or a tenant-at-will and was capable of being ejected at

the will of the landlord, This view is also contested, and it is said that the defendant was at least a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act though

without a proper and valid document of title, and that he would not be ejected without proper notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

There is no doubt that the defendant was not a trespasser at the time when he was brought on to the land, but his tenure was a service tenure only

according to the finding of the District Judge which I have no reason, upon the evidence in the case, to differ from, and, as a matter of fact, no

argument has been