SHANTABAI v.

STATE OF BOMBAY, AIR 1958 SC 532

1. Petitioner’s (Shantabai) husband the owner of a forest, has executed an unregistered document
(deed) in the form of a lease in favor of Petitioner on April 26, 1948. Due to this deed, Petitioner
got the right to enter the forest for cutting and taking out bamboo, teak trees reached that girth
(circumference) and fuel wood for consideration of Rs. 26,000 for 12.5 years.
2. The term of the deed is from April 26, 1948 to December 26, 1960, and the consideration is Rs.
26,000.
3. In 1950, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act was passed making Petitioner
(Shantabai) lose her right to cut any more trees.
4. She approached to the Deputy Commissioner and obtained an order permitting her to enter the
forest and cut the trees. The Divisional Forest Officer took action against her and passed an order
directing that her name might be cancelled and the cut materials forfeited. She moved the State
Government against this order but to no effect.
5. Thereafter she filed writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and contended that the order of
Forest Officer infringed her fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) and further
claimed compensation.
6. Issue: Whether the nature of the right of the petitioner (Shantabai) was a right regarding movable
property or immovable property.
7. The Court talked about the phrase ‘benefit arising out of land’ and held that right to enter upon
land and cut trees is a benefit arising out of the land. The Court referred the Anand Behera case.
8. Court held that

a) the petitioner’s (Shantabai) right to enter the land to cut the trees is a profit-a-prendre, i.e., the
right to take soil or minerals or any produce from a land.

b) such trees are considered as standing timber as on the date of the document but since the size is
minimal and can fall earlier, are regarded as movable property.

c) The deed was an unregistered document that confirms that there was no violation of any
fundamental right in the first place and A cannot enforce it as A has not acquired any right in the eyes of
the law. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

9. Justice Bose held that in case of a lease, one can enjoy the property but that does not give them the
right to remove it. He added that trees are immovable and in case of a lease, registration is a necessary
requirement and for the lease of immovable property form more than a period of one year, the deed
required registration because the total value was Rs. 26,000.

 The document conferred a right on the petitioner to enter on the lands in order to cut down and
carry away, not merely the standing timber, but also other trees that were not in a fit state to be
felled at once. The grant was, therefore, not merely in respect of moveable property but
immoveable property as well.
 It was included in the judgment that such trees are considered as standing timber as on the date of
the document but since the size is minimal and can fall earlier, are regarded as movable property.
 Court held that trees are regarded as immovable property. In the case of a lease, the person who
enjoys the property has no right to take it away. In a profit-a-prendre, one has permission to enter
 the land, not to enjoy it, but to remove something. There is a distinction between lease and profit-
a-prendre. The lease enjoys immovable property, whereas a person has only the right to take the
goods (such as soil, or minerals from land) in profit-a-prendre.
 The deed was an unregistered document that confirms that there was no violation of any
fundamental right in the first place and petitioner’s (Shantabai) cannot enforce it as petitioner’s
(Shantabai) has not acquired any right in the eyes of the law. Therefore, the petition was
dismissed.

State Of Orissa & Other v. The Titaghur Paper Mills Company 1985 AIR 1293, 1985 SCR (3) 26

1. The Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1917 empowered the State Government to declare goods or class of
goods liable to be taxed.
2. The government issued a notification through which standing trees and bamboos agreed to be
severed were liable to be taxed on the turnover of purchase.
3. Writ petitions were filed by a group of those people who had entered into bamboo contracts
and timber contracts with the State.
4. The Petitioners contended that the subject matter of the bamboo contract was not a sale or
purchase of goods but was a lease of immovable property or was a creation of an interest in
immovable property by way of grant of ‘Profit a Prendre’ and due to this the royalty payable
under the bamboo contracts could not be made exigible to either sales tax or purchase tax.
5. The Court held that “felling, cutting, obtaining and removing bamboos from forest areas for the
manufacture of paper” is a benefit to arise out of the land and it would thus be an interest in
immovable property.

Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2000) 1 SCC 633

1. ICI India agreed to transfer its fertilizer business including the plant and machinery to
Duncan Industries (appellant)
2. The machineries which formed the fertilizer plant were permanently embedded in the
earth, for running the fertilizer factory and at the time, when these machineries were
embedded in earth, they were done so by the owner with an intention, to use them
permanently.
3. The parties had treated them as movables and had delivered possession of the said plant
and machinery as movables.
4. The issue was with respect to the character of plant and machinery.
5. Held that the plant and machinery to be treated as immovable property
6. Referred cases: Reynolds v Ashby &Son (1904 AC 466), Official liquidator v Shri
Krishan Deo AIR 1959 All 257,

Bamadev Panigrahi v. Monorama Raj AIR 1974 AP 226

1. The plaintiff’s husband installed cinema equipments like projector, diesel engine, etc.
on that mortgaged land for the purpose of running the cinema
2. Issue is whether cinema equipments relate to movable or immovable
3. property.
4. Held: Cinema equipments installed are ‘movable properties.
5. Intendment, object and purpose of installing the cinema equipments was only to have
the beneficial enjoyment of the very equipment during the mortgage.
6. Referred Cases: Naryana v. Balaguruswami AIR 1924 Mad. 187, Meghraj v Krishna
Chandra AIR 1924 All. 365, Subramaniam Firm v Chindambaram 412 Transfer of
Property Act AIR 1940 Mad. 527, Mohammed Ibrahim v. Northern Circas Fibre
Trading Co. AIR 1944 Mad. 492, Board of Revenue v. Venkataswami Naidu AIR
1955 Mad.620, J.H Subbiah v Govind Roa AIR 1953 Nag. 224, Chetty & Co. v.
Collector of Anantapur AIR 1965 A.P. 457