( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2008 Dharamsingh Gulabsingh Artiya APPELLANT VERSUS Suwalal Chaganmal Bafna & others RESPONDENTS WITH SECOND APPEAL NO. 209 OF 2008 Dharamsingh Gulabsingh Artiya APPELLANT VERSUS Suwalal Chaganmal Bafna & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.M. Shah, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for the appellant in both appeals. Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, advocate for respondent No.3 in second appeal No. 208/2008 and for respondent No.1 in second appeal No. 209/2008. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 16th December, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The entire gamut of argument is that in the registered lease-deed, there is variation made in ( 2 ) respect of the dimensions by interpolations and, therefore, the lease transaction was not properly interpreted by the Courts below. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below as regards the area of the land which was leased out to the respondents. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant is owner of the land in question. According to the appellant, the leased out area was of 165 feet x 370 feet whereas case of the respondents was that originally, 265 feet x 370 feet area was leased out in the year 1961 when the lease transaction was entered into. The open plot was required by M/s Bafna Motors for their business purposes and prior to the lease, the non-agriculture (N.A.) permission was obtained by the appellant. 3. Basically, intention of the parties to the lease transaction plays an important role. The previous conduct of the parties, including the application (Exh-33) dated 07-12-1996, relevant statement dated 10-01-1961 recorded by the Revenue Inspector in the N.A. proceedings and other attending circumstances go to show that the plaintiff Dharamsingh categorically stated that ( 3 ) area of 265 feet x 370 feet was to be leased out and, therefore, permission for N.A. use was required. Not only that, subsequently, he gave an application dated 07-04-1981 to the office of the Collector wherein he stated that area of 265 feet East-West x 370 feet North- South was leased out to the defendant. Thus, there is pre-lease deed conduct and record to show intention of the parties as well as post-record to show that actually, the area leased out was of 265 feet x 370 feet. The appellant seems to have raised the dispute regarding the area on the ground that the lease-deed could not have been rectified without following due procedure under section 20 (2) of the Registration Act, 1908. It is argued that there are two certified copies of the lease-deeds, one which shows that there was no such rectification and another which shows that there was rectification about East-West length. In my opinion, this is a matter of appreciation of the evidence. It appears that both the Courts below have elaborately discussed the relevant attending circumstances. So far as the erasions or alterations in the lease-deed are concerned, sub-section (1) of section ( 4 ) 20 of the Registration Act would make it amply clear that it is within the discretion of the Registrar to object and deny the registration of such a document unless the executant would attest the relevant alteration. That does not enure to the benefit of the appellant if in his discretion, the Registrar had not objected the registration of the lease-deed. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 4. By consent, however, the order regarding the compensatory costs is set aside in as much as the counsel for the parties agree that the suit could not be stamped as false and frivolous within the meaning of section 35A of the Civil Procedure Code. 5. Both the second appeals are dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa208-209-08 ( 5 )