https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272916 The Collector had no effective authority to create a binding permanent tenancy of a minor's lands, and the later lease was not ratified because there was no proved knowledge and adoption by the plaintiff after majority. The earlier unregistered leases could not affect immovable property or be used as evidence of title, though they could explain the nature of possession; the later registered lease was also ineffective as a binding grant because the Collector was functus officio. Possession under the asserted permanent tenancy, however, was openly adverse and continued beyond the statutory period, so the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was barred by limitation. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 1903 00:00:00 +0521 Thu, 24 May 2018 15:38:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272916 The Collector had no effective authority to create a binding permanent tenancy of a minor's lands, and the later lease was not ratified because there was no proved knowledge and adoption by the plaintiff after majority. The earlier unregistered leases could not affect immovable property or be used as evidence of title, though they could explain the nature of possession; the later registered lease was also ineffective as a binding grant because the Collector was functus officio. Possession under the asserted permanent tenancy, however, was openly adverse and continued beyond the statutory period, so the plaintiff's suit for ejectment was barred by limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Feb 1903 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272916