JUDGMENT 1. In our opinion the Subordinate Judge was wrong in saying that the petition of compromise in this case was an agreement to lease and required to be properly stamped and registered. He says:--"I find that the petition is clearly an agreement to lease, as the Plaintiffs, who are the Defendants In that case, proposed certain terms, which were accepted and meant to be acted upon by the Defendant." We have examined the petition of compromise; but we find no terms mentioned in it. The third paragraph says : "The Plaintiffs have consented to let out the disputed land to us. After this suit is decreed, pottah and kabuliyat will be exchanged between the parties. Filing this solenamah with the consent of the Plaintiffs, we pray that the suit may be ordered to be disposed of in pursuance of this compromise." That being so, this petition is not an agreement, but merely contains a recital of a previous oral agreement. It is evidence of an oral agreement but not an agreement in itself and therefore does not require either a stamp or registration. Moreover, it was admitted in the first Court without a stamp: so that it should not have been rejected by the lower Appellate Court because it was not stamped. 2. We, therefore, decree this appeal and remand the case to the lower Appellate Court to be decided on the merits. The costs will abide the result.