https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199916 The court held that the lease was valid as an oral contract for agricultural purposes, not requiring registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Lac cultivation was classified as agriculture, exempting the lease from registration. The contract was deemed oral, with damages assessed from the effective breach date of February 10, 1933. The plaintiff's method of calculating damages was upheld, and the defendant's contentions were dismissed. en-us Wed, 09 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:42:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199916 The court held that the lease was valid as an oral contract for agricultural purposes, not requiring registration under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. Lac cultivation was classified as agriculture, exempting the lease from registration. The contract was deemed oral, with damages assessed from the effective breach date of February 10, 1933. The plaintiff's method of calculating damages was upheld, and the defendant's contentions were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 09 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199916