SANTOSH JAYASWAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 11-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SANTOSH JAYASWAL AND ANR. 
v. 
ST ATE OF M.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Indian Registration Act, 1908/lndian Stamp Act, 1899/M.P. General 
Clauses Act, 1957/Transfer of Prope1ty Act, 1882 : 
A 
B 
Ss.17(1)(c) and (d)/s.2(16), Schedule I, A1ticle 35(a)/s.2(18)/s.3-Im-
C 
movable property--Grant of benefit a1ising out of-Right to catch fish-Held, 
being a Profit wising out of immovable prope1ty is "immovable prope1ty"-Is 
profit a prendre-lnstrwnent is compuls01ily registrable under Registration Act 
and required to be engrossed with necessary stamp duty under Stamp Act. 
The respondent-State Government granted to the appellants right to D 
catch fish in the tanks. On the requirement of registration of the instru-
ments under Indian Registration Act, 1908 and levy of stamp duty under 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899, it was contended before the Division Bench of the 
High Court that since the profit a prendre was not immovable property, 
the instruments were not required to be registered. The High Court E 
rejected the claim. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeals by special 
leave. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that right to catch fish 
was in the nature of licence and as such the instruments were neither 
compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act nor liable to stamp 
duty under the Stamp Act. 
Dismissing the civil appeal arising out of L.P.A. No. 22 of 1994 and 
_partly allowing the civil appeal arising out of L.P.A. No. 21 of 1994, this 
Court 
HELD : l.l. Right to catch fish would be a benefit arising out of land. 
Therefore, it is an immovable property. It is a profit a prendre attached to 
F 
G 
or benefit to arise out of the land. Therefore, it is an instrument under 
clauses (1) to (3) of Article 35(a) of Schedule I to Indian Stamp Act, 1899, 
required to be engrossed with necessary stamp duty. If its value is more than H 
527 
528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Rs. 100 or the lease is on year to year basis, it is compulsorily registrable 
instrument under s.17(l)(d) oflndian Registration Act, 1908. [530-D-E] 
The Bihar Eastem Gangestic Fishennen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. 
Sipahi Singh and Ors., [1977) 4 SCC 145, relied on. 
B 
Ananda Behari andAnr. v. T7ie State of Olissa andAnr., [1955) 2 SCR 
919; The'State of West Bengal v. Shebaits of Iswar Sli Saradia Thakurani and 
Ors., [1972) 4 SCC 158; Board of Revenue and Ors. v.A.M. Ansali and Ors., 
[1976) 3 SCC 512 and State of Olissa and Ors. v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. 
Ltd. & Anr., [1985) Supp. SCC 280, inapplicable. 
C 
1.2. In the instant case, in the absence of the documents and there 
D 
being no controversy before the Division Bench of the High Court whether 
the documents were leases or licenses, the High Court was right in holding 
that the documents were leases. [530-H] 
1.3. In Civil Appeal arising out of L.P.A. No. 22 of 1994 since the 
duration of lease is more than a year, it is an instrument compulsorily 
registrable by operation of s.17(1)(c) of the Registration Act and liable to 
stamp duty under the stamp Act. Therefore, it cannot be acted upon 
unless it is duly engrossed with stamp duty and registered. [531-E] 
E 
1.4. Since duration of lease in the civil appeal arising out of L.P.A. 
No. 21 of 1994 is only nine months, it is not compulsorily registrable 
instrument by operation of s.17(1)(c) of Registration Act. However, it is 
an instrument which requires to bear appropriate stamp duty. [531-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8429-30 
F 
of 1995. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.94 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in LP.A. Nos. 21 & 22 of 1994. 
Pramod Swamp, for the Appellants. 
Mrs. Kitty Kumaramanglam and S.K. Agnihotri, for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H · 
Leave granted. 
S.JAYASWAL v. STATE 
529 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated A 
26.8.1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 
LP.A. Nos. 21 and 22 of 1994 titled State of M.P. and Others v. Santosh 
Jaiswal and LP.A.No. 2J./94 titled State of M.P. and Others v. Surendra 
Shukla. The question canvassed before the Division Bench was whether the 
right to catch fish in the tank granted in favour of the appellants was in the 
nature of a lease or licence, an instrument compulsorily registerable under B 
the Indian Registration Act and liable to stamp duty under the Indian 
Stamp Act. The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.