JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a Defendants appeal against the confirming decision of the Additional District Judge of Cuttack, arising out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of a portion of land in plot No. 349 described in detail as Ka schedule in the plaint. 2. According to the Plaintiff on 15-11-1949 the landlord leased out (sic) 08 acre including the suit-land by an unregistered patta (ext. 2) in favour of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff possessed the eastern portion of the said land by constructing five rooms thereon, and the western portion by planting some Sajana and Bannana trees. Later on, on 28-1-1950 the defend took lease of a portion of the Anabadi land to the immediate south of the suit-land and subsequently constructed a house thereon. Plot No. 349 has an extensive area of about 12 acres rand the disputed portion is only a small fraction of the said area. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendants trespassed upon the plaint Ka schedule lands and constructed a thatch thereon and started digging a well. Dispute thus having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to arbitrators who gave their award on 8-2-1954 by which the Plaintiff was to leave a portion of the land and the Defendants were to remove the thatch from the Ka schedule lands. As the Defendants did not act upto the award, the Plaintiff filed the present suit. 3. The Defendants completely denied the lease in favour of the Plaintiff. Their case is that they took lease of the suit lands from the landlord on 28-1-1950 and built a house on a portion of the lease-hold and used the rest for storing fuel etc. The Plaintiff took lease of 0.04 acre to the east of the suit-land and built a house thereon. After vesting of the land in the Government, there were some differences' between the landlord and the Defendants and the landlord has set up the Plaintiff by manufacturing a fraudulent lease-deed and a Kabuliyat. 4. Both the courts below found the lease dated 15-11-1949 in favour of the Plaintiff to be genuine and the suit-land forming part of the said lease. They also found the Plaintiff to be possession of the suit-land on the basis of the said lease and they thus decreed the Plaintiff's suit. 5. 4. Both the courts below found the lease dated 15-11-1949 in favour of the Plaintiff to be genuine and the suit-land forming part of the said lease. They also found the Plaintiff to be possession of the suit-land on the basis of the said lease and they thus decreed the Plaintiff's suit. 5. The present dispute between the parties is confined only to Ka schedule lands though originally the claim was both with respect to Ka and Kha schedule properties. The courts below in coming to their aforesaid conclusion relied both on oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties; and that finding of fact is not assailed before me. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant however, raised and contended that the ease having been made on an yearly rent of Rs. 0-6-0 it is compulsorily registrable u/s 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act and it not having been so registered, is not admissible u/s 49 of the said Act to prove any title of the Plaintiff. Once the lease is reduced into writing, the only evidence admissible to prove the terms of the document is the document itself. In support of his contention Mr. Dasgupta relied upon a decision reported in (Maharani) Janki Kuer Vs. Birj Bhikhan Ojha and Others. In that case it was held by their Lordships that if the lease or grant is in the form of a document, then the only evidence admissible in proof of the terms of the document is the document itself, and unless it is registered even the document itself cannot be admitted in evidence as proof of any transaction affecting the property. But their Lordships also held that: A lease of immovable property granting Mokharari interest for an indefinite period at a fixed rent need not be in writing. It may be effected by oral agreement in which case no question of registration arises and the lease may be proved in the same way as any other verbal agreement. Their Lordships further held that: A document inadmissible for the purposes mentioned in Section 49, may nevertheless be admitted for collateral purpose to prove possession or the nature of possession. In a later Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in Tikait Bishambhar Narain Singh and Others Vs. Their Lordships further held that: A document inadmissible for the purposes mentioned in Section 49, may nevertheless be admitted for collateral purpose to prove possession or the nature of possession. In a later Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in Tikait Bishambhar Narain Singh and Others Vs. Ajodhya Ram, their Lordships while explaining the aforesaid decision observed: What was held in that case was not that no other evidence to prove the existence of a tenancy could be accepted, but merely stated that where a written document was defective as a valid and finally concluded agreement such defect may be supplied by the subsequent acting's and the conduct of the parties as where subsequent acts of the parties themselves disclose a state of affairs consistent only with the existence of an agreement mutually recognised and acted upon as if the instrument were binding. Their Lordships further held: It is open to a landlord to create a tenancy by giving possession and accepting rent, and clearly therefore, such a tenancy can be proved by evidence other than the production of the unregistered Hukumnama by which the tenant takes settlement of an agricultural land from the landlord. Assuming that Ext. 1 is not admissible in proof of the Plaintiff's title, yet there is no legal difficulty in using the document to prove the possession of the Plaintiff. That apart there is the Kabuliyat executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the landlord who has been examined in the case and has admitted the possession of the Plaintiff and the acceptance of rent from him. The payment of rent by the Plaintiff under ext. 3 series cannot however be disputed. 6. Mr. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Respondent, contended that the Kabuliyat Ext. 1 executed by the Plaintiff can be admitted in proof of his tenancy and for this purpose, he relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Lahore High Court reported in AIR 1943 127 (Lahore) where their Lordships had held: A rent deed (not compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act) executed by a tenant in favour of an landlord if not registered can be relied upon to establish the relationship existing between the parties. For it contains an admission or an acknowledgment by the person attempted to be made liable and should be the very best evidence that one can possibly have as to the oral agreement of a lease and a Court is not prevented from looking into it for this purpose. 7. It was also contended on behalf of the Appellant that the description of the property mentioned in the lease being of a vague nature no extraneous evidence is admissible to locate the disputed land. The question however does not arise for consideration in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below who even relying upon the oral evidence of the parties were able to trace out the disputed land and held it to be in the possession of the Plaintiff. There was no difficulty in identifying the suit-land even without the aid of Ext. 1 and 2 and they the Courts in fact came to the finding that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. 8. It was next contended that Ext. 1 being a unilateral document executed by the landlord alone is void u/s 107 of the Transfer of Property Act and even though Section 117 of the said Act excludes the operation of the said Act it does not exclude the operation of Section 17 of the Registration Act and once an agricultural lease is reduced to writing it is compulsorily registrable. It was further contended that Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act applied to the case as by the very admission of the Plaintiff, the land was used as a Bari land by raising Sajana and Bannana trees and therefore, the lease hold was essentially for nonagricultural purposes. But it is clear from the patta (Ext. 2) itself that the lease was given for agricultural purposes by bestowing the status of a Sthitiban raiyat on the Plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be doubted that the origin of the lease was for agricultural purposes. That being so the mere using of the land for any other purpose will no destroy the original character of the lease. Thus, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to such a case. That an agricultural tenant could be inducted even without any document and by the mere acceptance of rent by landlord cannot be doubted. Thus, Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application to such a case. That an agricultural tenant could be inducted even without any document and by the mere acceptance of rent by landlord cannot be doubted. It may be noted that the Defendant also admitted the lease and possession of the Plaintiff but only in respect of four decimals of land. The landlord P.W. 1 has given evidence in support of the Plaintiff admitting the lease and the posses of the Plaintiff. In view of this position the contention raised on behalf of the Appellant cannot be accepted. In the result, the Plaintiff is bound to succeed and his claim has been rightly decreed by the Courts below. There is thus no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed