1. In this case the learned District Judge affirming the decision, of the Munsif has dismissed the plaintiff''s suit for rent on the ground that the plaintiff has not had his name registered under the Land Registration Act and is, therefore, by the provisions of Section 78 of that Act, precluded from recovering rent from the defendant. But the defendant took a lease from the plaintiff and in the lease there is a contract by which the defendant undertakes to pay the plaintiff''s rent. That being so it is contended by the appellant that it comes within Section 81 of the Land Registration Act which provides that nothing in Section 78 shall be held to interfere with the conditions of any written contract. The provisions, therefore, of Section 78 do not have the effect of preventing the defendant from being liable to pay rent to the plaintiff notwithstanding his name is not registered; because, he pays it under a written contract which is expressly excepted from the provisions of Section 78 by the provisions of Section 81.
2. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and we remand the case to the Court of first instance in order that the amount of rent which the plaintiff is to recover may be determined.
3. Costs will abide the result.
4. The appellant is entitled to his costs of this Court.
