JUDGMENT : N.L. Untwalia and S. Wasiuddin, JJ. 1. The relevant facts in this first appeal filed by the State of Bihar can be compressed in a nut shell. It is not necessary to give all the facts for the purpose of deciding this appeal, as in it there is only one point involved for determination. 2. Rani Hingal Kumari was the proprietress of a Zamindari known as the Pandra Estate comprised in the Manbhum Collectorate. Before the year 1895 (perhaps in the year 1866, as it appears from another JUDGMENT : of the High Court in a first appeal to which reference will be made later), a Patni lease was created by the said proprietress in favour of one Govind Prasad Pandit. The original document was filed in another suit and its certified copy was filed in this case which is Exhibit 1/a. A dispute arose between the Maliks of the Pandra Estate and the Patnidar as to whether under Exhibit 1/a the latter had derived a right to the under-ground minerals also situated in several villages in respect of which the Patni Taluk was created. One of the villages, which is the village in question, was Mauja Nirsa. At the end of the nineteenth century, a suit was filed by the Pandra Estate against the descendants of Govind Prasad Pandit, disputing the latter's right to under-ground minerals. The Patnidars claimed such rights. The trial court, as it appears, decided the suit in favour of the Pandra Estate and against the Patnidars. The latter filed First Appeal No. 129 of 1895 in the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal/The dispute was compromised in the High Court. The Court was not invited to express its opinion by a JUDGMENT : as to whether the mineral rights were covered tinder Exhibit 1/a. The com-promise petition filed in the first appeal aforesaid in the Calcutta High Court is Exhibit 2. The Court was not invited to express its opinion by a JUDGMENT : as to whether the mineral rights were covered tinder Exhibit 1/a. The com-promise petition filed in the first appeal aforesaid in the Calcutta High Court is Exhibit 2. It recites : It is ORDER :ed and decreed with the consent of the parties by their respective' Vakils, that the decree of the lower Court be set aside and it is further offered and decreed with the like consent that on receipt of Rupees twenty five thousand from the Receivers of the Searsole Estate of which appellant are beneficial owners, the respondent do ratify the said putni lease in respect of the Mouza Nirsha and others covered by the said lease including all usufruct and underground rights either to the surface or the underground and subsoil except to receive after the year 1303 B.S. the rents payable under the said lease according to the Kabuliyat executed by the said Gobind Prosad Pundit, deceased, and it is further ORDER :ed and decreed with the like consent, that the appellants do have immediate possession of "the property covered by the suit and by the said Putni lease without let or hindrance by the respondent (the security furnished in the court below being discharged) and do pay and deliver to the respondent the rent and articles mentioned in the said Putni lease due for the year 1304 B.S. 3. Nothing is known in this suit as to what happened between the year 1898, when the compromise was entered into in the Calcutta High Court, and the year 1945. What we know is that in the year 1946 a lease was executed in favour of original defendant No. 1 Satkori Banerji, who had been inducted as a leasee to work the mines in the year 1945 by the descendants of Govind Prasad Pandit. The executants of the indenture of lease dated 14th May, 1946, which is Exhibit 1, were Kumar Pashupati Nath Maliah and his brother Kumar Kshitipati Nath Maliah. They were imp leaded as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. Satkari Banerji entered into possession and worked the mines as a lessee. In or about the year 1953 the two Maliahs transferred their properties by execution of several deeds of trust of gift in favour of their wives, sons or other relations. They were imp leaded as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit. Satkari Banerji entered into possession and worked the mines as a lessee. In or about the year 1953 the two Maliahs transferred their properties by execution of several deeds of trust of gift in favour of their wives, sons or other relations. The plaintiffs in the suit are the persons who claim an interest in the property and consequently in the lease by virtue of those deeds of transfer. One hundred bighas of coal lands were given in lease by Exhibit 1 in the year 1946. Earlier a suit was instituted for realisation of royalty, commission, etc., being title mortgage suit No. 14 of 1948, in respect of the period ending December, 1947. It was decreed against the lessees. The present suit was filed on the 2nd of January. 1960, against Satkori Banerji as the principal defendant No. 1 for realisation of royalty, commission, etc., for the period January, 1948, to November, 1959. In this suit was impleaded one of the persons holding eight annas right under the various deeds of transfer executed by defendants 3 and 4, as defendant No. 2. Subsequently, he was transposed to the category of the plaintiffs. Satkori Banerji died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were substituted. There have been some more deaths on the either side and heirs have been substituted. It is not necessary to go into their details. Suffice it to say that the suit is by the persons who claim to hold title as patnidars against their lessees for realisation of the amounts of royalty and commission said to be due roughly for the period 1948 to 1959. 4. The defence taken by Satkori Benerji in the suit was that on the vesting of the estate and the intermediaries' rights in the State of Bihar from the 1st of January, 1956, the lessee became a lessee under the State and it paid rent, royalty or commission to the State, The State has always realised the same from him and hence he was not liable to pay anything to the plaintiffs for the period 1st of January, 1956, onwards. On this objection, the State of Bihar was added as a party defendant to the suit as defendant No. 5. On this objection, the State of Bihar was added as a party defendant to the suit as defendant No. 5. Apart from decreeing the suit against the principal defendants, for the earlier period, the court below, in presence of the State of Bihar, has decreed the suit against it for the subsequent period also, i.e., the period subsequent to the date of the vesting of the estate. Although there is no decree against the State of Bihar, as none was asked for the decision given in its presence by the court below does affect its right and, therefore, it has come up in appeal. 5. The only point submitted by the learned Government Pleader (No. I) on behalf of the appellant is that on the vesting of the estate on the 1st of January, 1956, the lessee, namely, Satkori Banerji, became a lessee or was recognised as such under or by the State of Bihar and, therefore, the State had rightly realised rent from Satkori Banerji on and from that date. 6. Mr. Amala Kanta Choudhary has appeared for the substituted heirs of the principal defendant No. 1 and Mr. S.K. Mazumdar appeared for the plaintiff-respondents. The latter submitted that Govind Prasad Pandit or his descendants were not tenure-holders in respect of the mineral rights. They were lessees of the Pandra Estate in respect of those rights. Hence, Satkori Banerji was a sub-lessee under them. Under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act as they stood at the relevant time, Satkori Banerji did not become a lessee under the State, was not liable to pay rent, royalty or commission to it and the suit has rightly been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the court below, 7. It is manifest that under Exhibit 1/a a tenure-holder's right was created in favour of Govind Prasad Pandit. The document clearly indicates that. The interest, therefore, created under Exhibit 1/a was that of in "intermediary" within the meaning of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. On the face of Exibit 1/a, it was doubtful whether mineral rights were also granted to the Patnidars and that led ID the dispute between the Zamindar and the Patnidar, resulting in a compromise in First Appeal No. 129 of 1895 in the Calcutta High Court in the year 1898, I have quoted in extenso the relevant terms of the compromise from Exhibit 2. That clearly indicates that no new right was created by the Zamindar in favour of the Patnidar. On acceptance of rupees twenty five thousand from the Receiver of the Searsole Estate, which was the estate of the Patnidars, their right on the basis of the original Patni lease (Exhibit 1/a) was recognised as "including all surface and underground rights either to the surface or the underground and subsoil." It is, therefore manifest that no new right was created under Exhibit 2. Whatever right Govind Prasad. Pandit had under Exhibit 1/a explicitly and in clear terms were recognised by the compromise (Ext. 2) by the Pandra Estate. That being so, there is no escape from the position that the Patnidars did not get a separate right in the minerals as a lessee, but they became entitled to the minerals as tenure-holders. Their right was extinguished on the vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar on and from the 1st of January, 1956, Satkori Banerji under Section 10 of the said Act became the lessee of the State of Bihar, which rightly realised rent, royalty or com-mission from him in respect of the lease. 8. Mr. Mazumdar, however, submitted that under Section 2 (r) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, "tenure- holder" means a person who has acquired from a proprietor a right to ; hold land for the purpose of collecting rent or bringing under cultivation by establishing tenants on it. It cannot mean a person who has acquired mineral rights. The right so acquired, either under the original lease, being Exhibit 1/a, or by the compromise, Ex-hibit 2, must be deemed to be a separate right as a lessee and not as" a tenure-holder. We are unable to accept this argument. Whatever rights were acquired by Govind Prasad Pandit were acquired as a tenure-holder. The main right as such were to hold the land for the purpose of collecting rent or bringing it under cultivation by establishing tenants on it and along with that, as a tenure-holder, he acquired the right to the minerals. There is nothing in Exhibit 1/a or in Exhibit 2 to indicate that a separate right by way of mining lease was created in favour of the Patnidars in respect of the minerals. That being so, the contention just discussed must be rejected. 9. In the alternative, Mr. There is nothing in Exhibit 1/a or in Exhibit 2 to indicate that a separate right by way of mining lease was created in favour of the Patnidars in respect of the minerals. That being so, the contention just discussed must be rejected. 9. In the alternative, Mr. Mazumdar submitted that Exhibit 2 created a new right in favour of those who were descendants of Govind Prasad Pandit who had acquired tenure-holder's right under Exhibit 1/a, and, this new right, learned Counsel, submitted, was that of a lessee of the underground minerals. Firstly, in our opinion, it is difficult to read Exhibit 2 as creating a new right. Even if it is assumed that the document created a new right, then it was a document of lease which required registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1877, which was the Act prevalent at the relevant time. Creation of a lease by a compromise decree, a matter, which was obviously beyond the scope of First Appeal 129 of 1895, in which the compromise was entered into, could not but be validly effected without registration of the compromise decree. (Vide Sachindra Mohan Ghose v. Ramjash Agarwalla) A.I.R. 1932 Pat. 97. The cases of Charu Chandra Mitra v. Sambhu Nath Pandey A.I.R. 1918 Pat. 507 and Bhudeb Chandra Roy v. Bhikshakar Pattnaik and Ors. A.I.R. 1942 Pat. 120 relied upon by Mr. Mazumdar do not help him on this point, rather, on the first point, they are against him. For want of registration, Exhibit 2 would be inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into in support of the plaintiffs' claim of a mining lease having been created ins favour of their predecessor-in-interest in the year 1898, by the Pandra Estate. As we haw said above, it is not known, nor is it the case of the plaintiffs, whether the Patnidars had acquired any right in the minerals by adverse possession or the like. What we know is that a lease was cheated by them in favour of Satkori Banerji in the year 1946. As we haw said above, it is not known, nor is it the case of the plaintiffs, whether the Patnidars had acquired any right in the minerals by adverse possession or the like. What we know is that a lease was cheated by them in favour of Satkori Banerji in the year 1946. If, as Patnidars, the persons creating the lease had no right to create it, and, if on the strength of the compromise they did not acquire any right to create such a lease, because the compromise was not registered, creation of a lease by them in the year 1946 was without any right, title or interest in the minerals. In that view of the matter, the conclusion would be that ho lease was validly created in favour of Satkori Banerji and although he could not deny the title of the persons who inducted him to the minerals as: lessee, on the vesting of the estate in the year 1956, the State of Bihar was not bound to recognise Satkori Banerji as a lessee of the underground mineral rights. At best it could be an incumbrance and anything which was not saved under the relevant provisions of the Bihar. Land Reforms Act occurring subsequent to Section 4 vested in the State of Bihar, including in this ease the mineral rights. But the State, instead of treating Satkori Banerji as a trespasser or as an incumbrance holder recognised him as a leasee, accepted rent, royalty or commission from him in respect of the lease-hold property. Even in that view of the matter, therefore, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiffs had no right to claim any rent, royalty or commission from Satkori Banerji on and from the 1st of January, 1956. 10. Out of the several villages, in respect of which the Patni lease was created in favour of Govind Prasad Pandit in the nineteenth centuary, one of the villages was Pitha Kiyari. Similar mining lease had been granted by the Patnidars in respect of that village also and an identical question arose in another suit in which the plaintiffs were the same but the defendants were different parties, which gave rise to first appeal No. 279 of 1962 in this Court. The suit had not been decreed by the court below in respect of the period on and from the 1st of January, 1956. The suit had not been decreed by the court below in respect of the period on and from the 1st of January, 1956. The plaintiffs had come up in appeal to this Court. On interpretation of the same documents, namely, the Patni lease, which is Exhibit 1/a in this case and was Exhibit 2 in that, and the compromise petition, which is Exhibit 2 in this case and was Exhibit 5 in that, a Bench of this Court held that on the vesting of the Zamindary the lessees brought about, by the Patnidars had become lessees under the State and the plaintiffs were not entitled to realise any rent, royalty or commission from the lessees on and from the date of vesting. Although the JUDGMENT : in First Appeal 279 of 1962 (Kumar Rani Kamla Devi and Ors. v. Banarsilal Agarwalla and Ors.) decided on the 14th September, 1967, obviously cannot operate as res judicata, it is binding as a legal precedent as interpretation of documents of title are question of law. Even that apart, we find ourselves in respectful agreement with the views expressed thereto. 11. Although we have taken the view that on and from the 1st of January, 1956, Satkori Banerji had become liable to pay rent, royalty or commission to the State of Bihar, we do not feel pursuaded in this appeal to knock down the decree against the heirs of Satkori Banerjee even in respect of the period January, 1956, to November, 1959, in exercise of our powers under ORDER :XLI, Rule 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the simple reason that we were informed at the Bar, both by Mr. Masrumdar and Mr. Choudhary that an appeal was filed by the heirs of defendant No. 1 in this Court, but that was dismissed for non-payment of court-fee. In that view of the matter, we do not think that we shall be justified in exercising our discretion under ORDER :XLI, Rule 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure and giving any relief to the heirs of Satkori Banerji even for the period in respect of which they rightly paid rent, royalty or commission to the State of Bihar. 12. In the result, while maintaining the decree of the court below against the principal defendant's, we set aside its findings against the State of Bihar to the extent indicated above. 12. In the result, while maintaining the decree of the court below against the principal defendant's, we set aside its findings against the State of Bihar to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, there will be no ORDER :as to costs.