8. On the basis of the aforesaid principle, the Patna High Court has, in several decisions, held that, if a person claims to have obtained raiyati interest by virtue of an unregistered document and further asserts that he came into actual possession of the same and has continued in such possession and that his payment of rent has been accepted by the landlord, his title to raiyati interest must be recognised, even though the unregistered lease is inadmissible as evidence of title. The leading judgment in support of this view is AIR 1924 Pat 641. In that decision, the learned Judges, after stating at pages 642 and 643 that a lease of immoveable property, if reduced to writing, must be registered, and, if not registered, oral evidence as regards the terms of the document will be inadmissible by virtue of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, further pointed out at in page 643 that, “if the subsequent acts of the parties themselves disclose a state of affairs consistent only with the existence of agreement mutually recognised and acted upon as if the instrument were binding then, although the written document may be defective as a valid and finally concluded agreement, such defects may be supplied by the subsequent acting and conduct of the parties”. In Mohammad Hanif v. Khairat Ali, AIR 1941 Pat 577, on which Mr. Prem Lall for the appellants relied, it was held that an unregistered written lease will not suffice to give title unless the lessee has been put in possession of the land. Fazl Ali, J. (as he then was), who heard the case on a difference of opinion between Meredith, J. and Agarwala, J. took care to specially lay down at page 591:
