Case Study : Smt. Shantabai v. State of Bombay | Property law | Transfer of Property Act | Difference between timber and standing timber

AIR 1958 SC532: (1959) SCR 265

Vivian Bose, J.

Facts of the case:

1. Husband of  the  petitioner granted her the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood from certain forests in his Zamindary by  an unregistered document for a period of 12 years.

2. Meanwhile, Madhya Pradesh  Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 was passsed and all proprietary rights in land vested in the State under s. 3 Of that  Act and the petitioner could no longer cut  any wood.

3. She applied to the Deputy Commissioner and obtained from him an order under S.6(2) of the Act permitting her to work the forest and started cutting the trees.

4. The Divisional Forest Officer took action against her and passed an order directing that her name might be cancelled and the cut materials forfeited.  

5. She moved the State Government against this order but to no effect. 

6. Thereafter she applied to Supreme Court  under Art. 32 of the Constitution and contended that the order of Forest Officer infringed her fundamental rights under Arts. 19(i)(f) and 19(1)(g).

Contention of Wife:

She should be given access to the land for cutting the tree as per deed executed by her with her husband.

Legal Issue:

Q1: Whether she has any proprietorship over the tree or land as per lease deed?

ANS: As per clause 7 of the deed she is not in the authorization  to cut any tree without the permission of Malik hence she has no proprietorship over land. Moreover deed signed was an unregistered deed, so void under eyes of law.

Q2: Whether trees were movable property or immovable property?

Ans: Court differentiate the meaning between timber and standing timber stating that the trees which were ready to cut for the purpose of converting into furniture come under definition of standing timber(i.e. movable property) and those still in the growing stage come in category of immovable tree.

Final Judgement:

The result is that, though such trees as can be regarded as standing timber at the date of the document, both because of their size and girth and also because of the intention to fell at an early date, would be moveable, property for the purposes of the Transfer of Property and Registration Acts, the remaining trees that are also covered by the grant will be immoveable property, and as the total value is Rs. 26,000, the deed requires registration. Being unregistered, it passes no title or interest and, therefore, as in Ananda Behera's case (1) the petitioner has no fundamental right which she can enforce.

My lord the Chief Justice and my learned brothers prefer to leave the question whether the deed here is a lease or a license coupled with a grant, open because, on either view the petitioner must fail. But we are all agreed that the petition be dismissed with costs.


-Summary by Tushar Bawa

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Summary : Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2000) 1 SCC 633 | Property Law

Bench: N.S. Hegde, B.N. Kirpal Facts of the case: 1.  ICI  India Ltd. executed an agreement of sale wherein it agreed to transfer on an “as is where is” basis and “as a going concern” its fertilizer business of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of urea fertilizer in favour of Chand Chhap Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (“CCFCL”), also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which company has since been renamed as M/s Duncans Industries Limited, Fertilizer Division, Kanpur Nagar (the appellant herein) for a total sale consideration of Rs 70 crores which was termed as “slump price” in the agreement. 2.  Pursuant to the said agreement, a deed of conveyance was executed by the said ICI in favour of CCFCL, on the presentation of the said Conveyance Deed for registration.  3. The Sub- Registrar made a reference to the Collector under  Section 47-A(2)  of the Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter refe...
Read more

Case Summary: Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998 | Indian Evidence Act | S. 10,17,21,34 IEA

Sections Involved Section 10 IEA: Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. –– Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Section 17 IEA:  Admission defined.––An admission is a statement, 1 [oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.  Section 18 IEA:  Admission––by party to proceeding or his agent....
Read more

Case Summary: State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar | Criminal Law | Cr.P.C.

 Case Citation : (2008) 3 SCC 222 Bench: Altamas Kabir. J Facts of the case: 1. The respondent in the first of these two appeals and the appellants in the other appeal applied for appointment as Constable-Drivers under the Haryana Police and submitted their respective application forms, which contained two columns, namely, 13(A) and 14, which read as follows:-      13(A): Have you ever been arrested?      14: Have you ever been convicted by the Court of any offence? Respondent answered the both questions as negative. 2. Subsequently, during verification of the character and antecedents of the said respondent, it was reported that he had been arrested in connection with a case arising out of FIR. However, he was aquitted in that matter by judicial magistrate. 3. Appellant, however, alleged that the respondent had concealed these facts from the Selection Committee and had not correctly furnished the information in columns 13(A) and 14 of the applica...
Read more