Skip to content


Lal Baijnath Singh Vs. Chandrapal Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All795; 83Ind.Cas.204
AppellantLal Baijnath Singh
RespondentChandrapal Singh and ors.
Cases Referred and Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pargash Ojha
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 4(2) - land, definition of--groveholder paying premium, whether tenant--interest, whether transferable--transfer of property act (iv of 1882), section 6. - - there is no evidence that any custom obtained in the village such as may govern a case like this......which they proposed to plant a grove, the rent would have been paid for the land and not for the grove. land on which a grove stands is not 'land' as defined in section 4 clause (2) of the tenancy act. see habibullah v. kalyan das 25 ind. cas. 169 : 12 a.l.j. 1080 and kesho prasad singh v. sheo pargash ojha 64 ind. cas. 248 : 19 a.l.j. 749 : 3 u.p.l.r. (a.) 117 (f.b.). the premium which-they paid can in no sense of the term be called a rent. a tenant under section 4 of the tenancy act is one who pays a rent for land or a grove and other things mentioned there. the respondents nos. 2 and 3 are, therefore, no tenants. it is clear, therefore, that the provisions of the tenancy act, specially section 20 of that act, do not apply.4. according to the general law all property, and certainly.....
Judgment:

1. The question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the respondents had a right to transfer their grove. The suit was for the ejectment of the respondents on the ground that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were holding the land with the permission of the plaintiff, the landholder, and they had no right to transfer the same on which a grove was standing to the respondent No. 1 without his consent.

2. It is common ground that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 obtained the land from the landholder, on payment of as lump sum as a premium without any agreement to, pay any rent, for the express purpose of planting trees. There is no evidence that any custom obtained in the village such as may govern a case like this. We have to decide the question on the provisions of the general law having special regard to the provisions of. the Tenancy Act.

3. The position of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be that of a tenant within the meaning of the Tenancy Act. They do not pay any rent. Much less do they pay any rent for a grove. Even if they had agreed to pay a rent for the land, on which they proposed to plant a grove, the rent would have been paid for the land and not for the grove. Land on which a grove stands is not 'land' as defined in Section 4 Clause (2) of the Tenancy Act. See Habibullah v. Kalyan Das 25 Ind. Cas. 169 : 12 A.L.J. 1080 and Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Pargash Ojha 64 Ind. Cas. 248 : 19 A.L.J. 749 : 3 U.P.L.R. (A.) 117 (F.B.). The premium which-they paid can in no sense of the term be called a rent. A tenant under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act is one who pays a rent for land or a grove and other things mentioned there. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are, therefore, no tenants. It is clear, therefore, that the provisions of the Tenancy Act, specially Section 20 of that Act, do not apply.

4. According to the general law all property, and certainly the interest of a person's holding on which he has planted a grove, is property--is transferable under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act. It, therefore, follows that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were entitled to transfer the interest that they possessed in the grove to the respondent No. 1. On this short ground the appeal fails. We, therefore, affirm the decree of this Court and dismiss the appeal with costs which will include Counsel's fees in this Court on the higher scale.


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