Shantabai v State of Bombay

Facts

The petitioner's husband had granted her, by an unregistered document, the right to enter certain forest land and to cut and take away trees/wood over a period of years. After the land vested in the State under abolition legislation, she was prevented from exercising the right and challenged the deprivation, claiming a transferable proprietary right.

Issues

• Whether the right to enter land and cut and remove trees is movable or immovable property.
• Whether the document conferring that right required registration to be valid and enforceable.

Arguments

The petitioner argued she had a valid transferred right to take the trees that entitled her to relief. The State argued that the right was an interest in or benefit arising out of land, amounting to immovable property, and the unregistered document conferring it was ineffective.

Held

The Supreme Court held that a right to enter upon land and carry away its produce, such as trees, is a 'benefit to arise out of land' and a profit a prendre, which in India amounts to immovable property. As immovable property of value above the statutory limit, such a right could be created only by a registered instrument; the unregistered document was therefore ineffective to confer the claimed right. The Court distinguished standing timber (which when intended for early severance may be movable) from growing trees drawing sustenance from the soil.

Ratio decidendi

A right to enter land and remove its produce is a profit a prendre and a benefit arising out of land, and therefore immovable property requiring a registered instrument for its valid transfer.

Significance

Leading Supreme Court authority on the meaning of immovable property, benefits arising out of land, profits a prendre and the distinction between trees and standing timber under section 3, with consequences for registration of transfers.

Related