Introduction  

• This case is the landmark judgment on Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 
• An unregistered document was executed in this case between the parties for granting the right to cut and take wood from the forest area. 

 Facts 

• The petitioner’s husband Shri Balirambhau Doye, the owner of a forest had executed an unregistered document that called itself a lease in favour of his wife Shantabai.  
• The lease granted her the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood from certain forests for the period of 12 and a half years in exchange for consideration of Rs. 26,000. 
• According to that deed, a right was conferred to the petitioner to enter the estate and also to cut and take out bamboo, teak and fuel wood. 
• In the same lease, one of the conditions of the deed was that the lessee was prohibited from cutting teak plants that were under the height of one and a half feet. 
• In 1950, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 was passed. 
  • Under Section 3 of the Act, all proprietary rights in the land are vested in the hands of the state.  
• After that the petitioner was stopped from cutting any more trees from the forest. 
• The petitioner on this violation of her right claimed compensation from the government as they ousted her from the forest from 1951 to 1955. 
• The claim was also initially given up on the understanding that the petitioner would be allowed to work in the forests for the remaining period. 
• The petitioner applied to the Divisional Forest Officer and asked for permission to work in the forests which was not granted to her.  
  • Later when she started cutting the trees on her own, she was stopped by the Forest Officer.  
• She filed a petition in the court under Article 32 of the Constitution praying to set aside the order 
• The petitioner's grievance is the infringement of fundamental rights under Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 19(1)(g) 

Issues Involved 

Whether the document confers any proprietary rights or interest on the petitioner?  

Whether the fundamental right of petitioner was violated? 

Observation 

• The right which was conferred by the document is a grant of profit a prendre which in Indian law is a benefit to arise out of land and thus creates an interest in immovable property. 
• The execution of document in this case was not a transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property and just a license to enter the land, not for the purpose of enjoying it, but to remove something from it, that is, a portion of the soil yield.  
• The court further said that something greater must be disclosed to bring a claim under Article 19 (1)(f) or Article 3I (1) of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
• The right to enter the land for the purpose of cutting and carrying timber standing on the ground is a benefit that arises from the land.  
  • There is no difference between English and Indian law on the context. But it still leaves the question whether it is movable or immovable property. 
• Under Section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act, 1977, it would be considered "immovable property" because it is a benefit which arises from the land and also because the trees are attached to the earth. 
• Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 states that standing wood is not immovable property for the purposes of that Act and is similarly stated under Section 2 (6) of the Registration Act, 1908. 
• The court stated that in the absence of a particular definition, the general definition should prevail. 

Conclusion 

• Pointing out the distinction between timber trees and standing timber, the court held that the grant here was not merely of standing timber, but the grantee here was empowered to take the benefit of the soil. 
• The court finally concluded that, as the unregistered lease deed was related to right upon an immovable property, the petitioner could not be granted any remedy. 

Notes 

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 -  

In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,— “immoveable property” does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass.