Sobharam Mahato vs Raja Mahton And Ors. on 30 January, 1957
In support of this argument learned Counsel referred to the decision in Maharani Janki Kuer v. Brij Bhikhan, 5 Pat LT 541 (AIR 1924 Pat 641), Ramautar Singh v. Jathi Tatma, 18 Pat LT 1012, Brikh Koeri v. Awadh Bihari Lal, AIR 1961 Pat 308 and Sobharam Mahto v. Raja Mahton, (S) AIR 1957
Pat 278. In our opinion the argument of learned counsel for the appellants on this point is well founded and must be accepted as correct. The true legal position is that under Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act a lease for agricultural purposes is not necessary to be made by a written instrument. It may be effected by an oral agreement, and when so effected no registration is required, but if the transaction is reduced to writing, then, in the case of a lease from year to year or for any term exceeding a year or reserving a yearly rent, registration would be required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, and, if unregistered, the lease will be inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act, and other evidence of its terms will be precluded under Section 91 of the Evidence Apt. This principle has been laid down in one of the earliest cases of this High Court by Dawson Miller, C. J. and Mullick, J. in 5 Pat LT 541 : (AIR 1924 Pat 641), and the principle has been repeatedly affirmed in subsequent authorities.