https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293096 The High Court upheld the lower courts' decision that the plaintiff owned plot A entirely but directed the District Judge to determine the validity of the lease held by the 3rd defendant on plot B. The District Judge found an oral lease for planting casuarina trees but deemed it invalid due to lack of registration. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the lease did not qualify as agricultural. The plaintiff was found not in possession at the date of the suit, leading to the appeal being allowed for plot B. The High Court awarded costs to the plaintiff. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 1915 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:47:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293096 The High Court upheld the lower courts' decision that the plaintiff owned plot A entirely but directed the District Judge to determine the validity of the lease held by the 3rd defendant on plot B. The District Judge found an oral lease for planting casuarina trees but deemed it invalid due to lack of registration. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the lease did not qualify as agricultural. The plaintiff was found not in possession at the date of the suit, leading to the appeal being allowed for plot B. The High Court awarded costs to the plaintiff. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Dec 1915 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293096