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

TMI Blog

Home

1963 (3) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom 13th August, 1958, and that he being a cultivating tenant was entitled to protection against eviction by reason of the provisions of Madras Act XXV of 1955. The agreement governing the rights of the parties is in writing. Ex. A.4 is typical of the preceding agreements. That says in effect that the appellant had taken on lease for a year coconut trees standing on the five topes specified in the schedule to the document and that in respect of three of the topes the appellant should preserve the land and make fit for cultivation at his own expenses. The appellant further agreed that he would not cultivate any kind of crop on the land in the tope. The schedule to the document expressly stated that the lease was in respect of the trees stand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in favour of the appellant by respondents 1 and 2, and secondly, whether such a lease is for agricultural purposes. The document makes it clear that the right created under the document is only in respect of the trees. The preamble as well as the schedule indicate that the agreement entitled the appellant only to collect the produce from the trees. There is no doubt a clause in the agreement which says that the appellant would be entitled to repair the land so as to render it useful for obtaining the produce. However that would seem to imply that no interest in land was created for if such a right or interest was intended to be created under the document, there was no necessity for this clause at all. Further, it is significant that the pri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e income derived from toddy would be agricultural income when it was received by the actual cultivator, whether owner or lessee of the land on which the trees grew. But if the income was received by a person who had not produced the trees from which toddy is tapped or had not done any agricultural operations whereby these trees had been raised, it would not be agricultural income. We will have to refer to this aspect of the, matter when we consider the second point. In Venugopala Pillai v. Thirunavukkarasu (1948) 2 M.L.J. 155=61 L.W. 514., there was a lease of coconut trees for the purpose of drawing toddy. The document which was executed between the parties showed that the lessee obtained the right to enjoy the toddy yield from the tree .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is whether there has been a lease of the land. There can be no doubt that the appellant's right was to enjoy only the coconut yield from the trees which derived their nutriment from the land. It may be that such a benefit amounts to an interest in immoveable property. But that is not the same thing as saying that there has been a transfer of the land itself. In the case cited above, the distinction that there could be a transfer of interest in immoveable property without there being a transfer of the land has been recognised. In the unreported judgment in C.R.P. No. 696 of 1958, Rajagopalan, J. has held that where a lease was merely of the usufruct of coconut trees on land, the lessee who had the right to collect the usufruct of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... epend mainly on the terms of the agreement. It is evident from the contents of the document which we have set out above that it cannot be said that exclusive possession of the land was given to the appellant. On the other hand, he is prohibited from doing anything on the land. In the case of three of the topes he was specifically given a power to render the soil fit, to facilitate presumably the irrigation of the trees etc. We are, therefore, of opinion that there has been no lease of the land. It is argued for the respondents that even if that question were to be answered in the affirmative, the lease should not be regarded as one for agricultural purposes. Support for the argument is sought from the decision of the Supreme Court in Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates