Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1925 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1925 (4) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Whether a contract for sale of a crop of mango fruit not in existence at the time of the contract is a contract relating to movable or immovable property?
2. Whether an unregistered agreement executed by the purchaser of the crop, binding himself to pay the price of future crops, is binding and can be proved against him?

Analysis:

Issue 1: The case involved a reference from the Court of Small Causes regarding the nature of a contract for the sale of a mango crop not yet in existence. The court deliberated on whether such a contract pertains to movable or immovable property. The court unequivocally determined that a contract for the sale of growing crops, including mango fruit, is related to movable property. The court cited Section 2 of the Registration Act, which excludes growing crops from the definition of immovable property. The court dismissed the argument that the crop not being in existence at the time of the contract changes its nature, emphasizing the impracticality of such a distinction. The court relied on precedents and legislative provisions to establish that the subject of the contract, being a growing crop, falls under movable property, thereby not necessitating registration.

Issue 2: The second question raised in the reference concerned the enforceability of an unregistered agreement where the purchaser undertakes to pay for future crops bought through an oral agreement. The court scrutinized the document in question and concluded that it lacked the formality of a transfer document. Despite a statement indicating the crop remaining with the purchaser, the court deemed the document a mere memorandum of notes rather than a formal agreement. Consequently, the court held that registration was unnecessary for the document and that the contract could be substantiated through other evidence. The court directed the return of the reference, with costs to be borne as per the cause.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad, through the judgment delivered by Boys, J., clarified the legal status of contracts for the sale of future crops and the enforceability of unregistered agreements in the context of movable property.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates