JUDGMENT : GRIFFIN, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent of a house and for possession thereof. The defendants denied the tenancy and pleaded adverse possession. In proof of the alleged tenancy the plaintiff relies upon an unregistered lease, dated 2nd January, 1871. The Registration Act XX of 1866 was then in force. The lower appellate court in dismissing the plaintiff's claim held that the document which was the sole evidence of the alleged tenancy, was inadmissible in evidence, as it was not registered. The learned Judge was of opinion that sections 17 and 47 of the Registration Act made the document absolutely inadmissible in evidence. The document is in the form of a kabuliat. In it the executant states that he had taken a certain house from the owner upon a yearly rental of Rs. 3. No term is fixed, but there is a further stipulation that, if called upon, he will yield such services to the zamindar as the zamindar requires and that in the event of his either failing to pay the rent or yielding such services, he will be liable to ejectment. 2. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that under section 17(4) of the Registration Act XX of 1866, the document is not one, the registration of which is compulsory. By that section a lease of immovable property for any term exceeding one year would have to be registered. 3. Under the kabuliat in suit, the lessee was liable to be ejected at any time even within the period of one year from its execution, if he failed to fulfil the terms of the lease. I am of opinion, therefore, that the lease is not one for a term exceeding one year, the registration of which, under the section mentioned above, would be compulsory. 4. It is pointed out on behalf of the appellant that there has been a change in the later Registration Act and that the present section 17(d) runs as follows:—“Leases of immovable property from year to year or any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, shall be registered. It would appear that the kabuliat in suit did not require registration under the Registration Act of 1866. The document, therefore, was admissible in evidence, unless the provisions of section 17 of the present Act render it inadmissible. It would appear that the kabuliat in suit did not require registration under the Registration Act of 1866. The document, therefore, was admissible in evidence, unless the provisions of section 17 of the present Act render it inadmissible. Section 17(1) is a follows:—The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which Act No. XVI of 1864 or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act, came or comes into force. 5. The corresponding section of the previous Act was considered by the Bombay High Court in Desai Motilal Mangalji v. Desai Parashotam Nandlali, [1893] I.L.R., 18 Bom., 92 and by the Calcutta High Court in Ram Coomar Singh v. Kiskaii, [1882] I.L.R., 9 Cal., 68. Both these High Courts have held a document which did not require registration under the Act of 1866, was not inadmissible in evidence by reason of the provisions in the later Act. The learned Chief Justice of Bombay remarks at p. 96 of the report: “It is plain that it is so regarded, as the Act provides no means of registering such a document (unless perhaps it was executed within three months before the Act of 1877 came into force), the section will have the retrospective effect of invalidating for all practical purposes documents which, when they were executed were free from defects according to the existing law. The presumption is, of course, against the legislature having such intention.” 6. Under the provisions of Part IV of the present Act the document could not be presented for registration. The legislature could not have intended the registration of a document which is incapable of registration. 7. It appears to me, moreover, that the general provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act would have to be read along with the present section 17 of the Registration Act. 8. I would hold, therefore, that the document was admissible in evidence if there was no other legal objection to its admissibility. 9. This being the case, I must allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below, dismissing the plaintiff's suit and remand the case to the lower appellate court for disposal on the merits.