An oral lease for agricultural lands is valid under the Transfer of Property Act, and the absence of a written lease document does not invalidate the lease.

Curgenven, J.

1. The suit out of which these appeals arise was brought by the Zamindar of Singampatti and three other plaintiffs in the following circumstances. With the object of leasing certain home-farm lands within the Zamindari for a term of seven years (faslis 1331 to 1337) an auction was held in March, 1921, the lease to go to the competitor who bid the highest lease amount. The 1st defendant (hereafter to be called the defendant) secured it for a sum of Rs. 9,000. Towards this amount he deposited Rs. 500 on 14th March, and the balance was to be paid in five yearly instalments of Rs. 1,500 and a final instalment of Rs. 1,000. By March, 1924, he had paid Rs. 6,500. The defendant was let into possession of the lands as from the 1st July, 1921, i.e., the commencement of fasli 1331, and continued in uninterrupted possession until, as a result of proceedings taken by him in 1924, under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a receiver was appointed to harvest the crops and realise the sale proceeds. What had happened Was that the Zamindar, alleging a voluntary surrender by the defendant in May, 1924, had leased the lands afresh to the 2nd to 4th plaintiffs. In view of the situation thus created, the Zamindar and his new tenants filed the present suit praying for either a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession or, if it should be found that the defendants were in possession, for delivery; and further for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to the sum of Rs. 5,600 deposited in Court by the receiver appointed in the possession proceedings. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants lease was only for one year. There were further allegations that the defendant, while in occupation of the land, had caused damage amounting to Rs. 4,000 to trees and to a tank, and that, to compound for his liability he had, as already stated, voluntarily surrendered the lease in May, 1924. It was added that he was understood to be setting up a seven years lease, and that even if true the lease was invalid, the document which purported to create it being unregistered. The defendant, in his written statement, traversed the allegations of, fact in the plaint and maintained that the lease was for seven years, and was valid.

2. The findings at the trial were in the first place that so far from the plaintiff succeeding in establishing a lease for one year there was overwhelming evidence that it was false, and that, subject to the question of its validity, the lease was for a term of seven years. The allegations of damage and of consequent surrender were also discredited. On the question of the Validity of the lease, however, and the further question of the effect of part performance, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge found for the plaintiff, and accordingly decreed possession. This decision is attacked by the defendant in A.S. No. 59 of 1927. In A.S. No. 157 of 1927 the plaintiff claims the sum realised by the receiver, a question which will only arise if the decision of the trial Court upon the main point is confirmed.

3. Dealing then with A.S. No. 59, we may note, to begin with, that the whole story of a years lease, of the defendants acts of waste and damage, and of a voluntary surrender, has been here abandoned. We are now concerned only with the question whether the steps taken by auction and otherwise to let the property for seven years resulted in a valid lease. The law applicable to the case is clear. If the lease had fallen within the Transfer of Property Act it could only have been made, as Section 107 provides, by a registered instrument. But it was an agricultural lease, and such leases are excluded by, Section 117. It could therefore have been made either orally or in Writing, though if in writing Section 17 of the Registration Act requires that it should have been registered. Admittedly there is no registered lease or agreement to lease. For the leas