JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - The only question on this appeal is whether a petition which was filed in certain criminal proceedings between the present Plaintiff and Defendant is admissible in evidence, when it has not been registered. There was some dispute between the parties, which resulted in criminal proceedings and the petition in question was presented in those proceedings; and in consequence they were withdrawn, but no order was passed incorporating the terms of the petition. The question in the present suit is, as to the amount of rent payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. It is a rent suit. As to the rent payable before the date of the petition there is no question, and a decree has been passed in the Plaintiff's favour in respect of that rent, But the Plaintiff says that, having regard to the terms of the solenamah as contained in the petition, he is entitled to more, to which the Defendant replies that the Plaintiff cannot rely upon the petition because it has not been registered, and not having been registered is not admissible in evidence. The petition so far as is material runs thus :-- " The disputed 1 bigha 15 cottahs land which has been in my possession from before will continue in my possession for 9 years more, i.e., from 1310, B.S. to 1318, B.S. After that the landlord will be able to make settlement of the land (10) 12 C.W.N. 849 : s.c. 7 C.L.J. 492 (1908). as he likes. For the said land I will give to Biraj Mohini Dassi 41/2 aris of gola paddy annually, and this rajinamah will be considered as pottah kabuliyat. I will not therefore prosecute this case any further." The document defines the area of land, the rent to be paid the duration In point of time, of the tenancy, and the parties treated it as a pottah kabuliyat. This document is the foundation of the Plaintiff's title to the increased rent, and as the Plaintiff must fall back upon the petition itself, that cannot, unless it is registered, affect the immoveable property comprised therein, exceeding 100 rupees in value, or be receivable in evidence of the transaction affecting that property. This document is the foundation of the Plaintiff's title to the increased rent, and as the Plaintiff must fall back upon the petition itself, that cannot, unless it is registered, affect the immoveable property comprised therein, exceeding 100 rupees in value, or be receivable in evidence of the transaction affecting that property. If this petition had been filed in a civil proceeding, and the petition had been followed by an order or decree which embodied, directly or indirectly, its terms, then it would not have been necessary to have had it registered. But this has not occurred in the present case; and as this document is the root of the Plaintiff's claim to the increased rent, it ought to have been registered: and in the absence of registration it is not admissible In evidence. This view seems to be consistent with the Privy Council decision in Pranal Annee v. Lakshmi Annee 3 C.W.N. 485 : s.c.L.R. 26 IndAp 101; ILR 22 Mad. 508 (1899), with the decision of this Court in Kali Charan v. Ram Chandra ILR 80 Cal. 783 (1903), and with the principle involved in a more recent decision of this Court in Birbhadra v. Kalpataru 1 C.L.J. 388 (1905). The appeal therefore fails and must be dismissed with costs. Doss, J. I agree.