Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed civil appeals by special leave against a Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in LPA Nos.21 and 22 of 1994, concerning whether grants to catch fish in tanks constituted leases or licences and whether the instruments were compulsorily registrable under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The High Court had held the grants to be leases, a lease of nine months in one case and more than one year in another. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended the grants were only licences, hence neither compulsory registrable nor dutiable. However, the Court noted the lease-licence issue had not been raised before the Division Bench nor in the special leave petition, and no document was placed on record, so the Court proceeded on the premise that the instruments were leases. The core legal issue was whether the right to catch fish, a profit a prendre, is immovable property. The Court referred to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 2(18) of the M.P. General Clauses Act, which defines immovable property to include benefits arising out of land and things attached to the earth. It held that catching fish from a tank is a benefit arising out of land, hence immovable property, even though a profit a prendre. Consequently, if the value exceeded Rs.100 or the lease was from year to year or for a term exceeding one year, it required registration under Section 17(1)(c) or (d) of the Registration Act. The Court also held that under Section 2(16) of the Stamp Act read with Article 35(a) of Schedule 1-A, the instrument was chargeable with stamp duty. Distinguishing earlier decisions in Ananda Behari, Shebaits of Iswar Sri Saradia Thakurani, Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari, and State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills, where the documents were construed as licences based on their language, the Court observed that since no document was before it and the issue was not raised, those cases provided little assistance. The Court ultimately partly allowed the appeal arising from LPA No.21/94 concerning Santosh Jaiswal, holding that a nine-month lease was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(c) but still required appropriate stamp duty. The appeal arising from LPA No.22/94 concerning Surendra Shukla, where the lease exceeded one year, was dismissed, holding that the instrument was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(c) and liable to stamp duty, and could not be acted upon unless duly engrossed and registered. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Profit a Prendre - Right to catch fish is a benefit arising out of land and immovable property under M.P. General Clauses Act, Section 2(18) - The court held that the definition of immovable property in the M.P. General Clauses Act includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth. Catching fish from a tank is a benefit arising out of land, hence immovable property, even though it is a profit a prendre. Held that the grant of such a right must therefore be treated as immovable property for registration and stamp duty purposes (Paras not mentioned). B) Registration Law - Compulsory Registration of Leases - Leases of immovable property from year to year or exceeding one year require registration under Section 17(1)(c) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 - The court proceeded on the premise that the instruments were leases, not licences, because the issue was not raised before the Division Bench and documents were not placed on record. It held that a lease of immovable property for more than one year is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(c); a nine-month lease is not compulsorily registrable by operation of that section. Held that for a lease exceeding one year, it cannot be acted upon unless duly registered (Paras not mentioned). C) Stamp Duty - Instruments Chargeable - Right to catch fish is an instrument for stamp duty under Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 2(16) and Article 35(a) of Schedule 1-A - Lease as defined includes patta, kabuliyat etc., and right to catch fish is profit a prendre and benefit arising out of land, immovable property for stamp duty. Held that even a nine-month fishing lease requires appropriate stamp duty though not compulsory registration (Paras not mentioned). D) Precedent - Distinguishable Cases on Licence vs Lease - The court distinguished Ananda Behari, Shebaits of Iswar Sri Saradia Thakurani, Board of Revenue v. A.M. Ansari, and State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills on the ground that in those cases the question was licence vs lease based on document language, not whether profit a prendre is immovable property. Held that since the document was not before this Court and issue not raised, no assistance from those precedents (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the right to catch fish in a tank is a lease or licence; whether profit a prendre is immovable property under M.P. General Clauses Act; whether the instrument is compulsorily registrable under Indian Registration Act; whether it is liable to stamp duty under Indian Stamp Act
Final Decision
Appeals disposed of: Civil Appeal arising out of LPA No.21/94 (Santosh Jaiswal) partly allowed—instrument requires appropriate stamp duty but not compulsorily registrable due to nine-month duration; appeal arising out of LPA No.22/94 (Surendra Shukla) dismissed—instrument is compulsorily registrable and liable to stamp duty, cannot be acted upon unless duly engrossed and registered. No costs.
Law Points
- Right to catch fish is profit a prendre and benefit arising out of land
- hence immovable property under M.P. General Clauses Act Section 2(18)
- compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(c)/(d) of Indian Registration Act if value exceeds Rs.100 or lease term exceeds one year
- stamp duty under Indian Stamp Act Section 2(16) and Article 35(a) of Schedule 1-A
- nine-month lease is not compulsorily registrable but still requires stamp duty
