Skip to content


Krishnaji Govind Pophale and ors. Vs. Gopal Krishna Sarvate - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Bom478
AppellantKrishnaji Govind Pophale and ors.
RespondentGopal Krishna Sarvate
Excerpt:
- - clearly, it was intended that the fruit of trees, or the produce in the shape of juice, should be treated as crop.macleod, c.j.1. the question in this, suit was whether the defendants were agriculturists. the judge found that their income derived from land was at the most rs. 400, while there was income of rs. 300 from toddy trees. he said that such income was not derived from agriculture. i cannot agree. the trees have to be planted and looked after, and standing crop in the act includes juice from trees. clearly, it was intended that the fruit of trees, or the produce in the shape of juice, should be treated as crop. therefore, the income from toddy juice can be treated as agricultural income.2. rule will be made absolute with costs and the case remanded for disposal to the lower court.
Judgment:

Macleod, C.J.

1. The question in this, suit was whether the defendants were agriculturists. The Judge found that their income derived from land was at the most Rs. 400, while there was income of Rs. 300 from toddy trees. He said that such income was not derived from agriculture. I cannot agree. The trees have to be planted and looked after, and Standing crop in the Act includes juice from trees. Clearly, it was intended that the fruit of trees, or the produce in the shape of juice, should be treated as crop. Therefore, the income from toddy juice can be treated as agricultural income.

2. Rule will be made absolute with costs and the case remanded for disposal to the lower Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //