Property in forest produce passes on severance, and later rate enhancement cannot reach goods already appropriated.

In a contract for sale of forest produce treated as unascertained goods, property passed when the bamboos were severed and extracted from the forest land, with measurement at the check-post and transit passes serving only as movement and accounting controls. An enhanced rate notified from 16-01-1969 could not be applied retrospectively to bamboos already cut and appropriated before that date, so the later demand at the higher rate was unsustainable and the excess amount recovered was refundable with interest for the relevant period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether property in the bamboos passed to the company when they were severed or extracted from the forest land. (ii) Whether the enhanced rate of Rs. 20 per ton applied to bamboos cut before 16-01-1969 but removed later, and whether the excess amount recovered was refundable.

Issue (i): Whether property in the bamboos passed to the company when they were severed or extracted from the forest land.

Analysis: The transaction was one for sale of unascertained goods. Under the law governing such sales, no property passes until the goods are ascertained. The contractual terms showed that once the bamboos were extracted and separated, they were at the company's risk, and the clauses dealing with extension and forfeiture were consistent only with the company becoming owner of the extracted bamboos at that stage. Measurement at the check-post and issue of transit passes were treated as accounting and movement controls, not as the point at which ownership passed.

Conclusion: Property in the bamboos passed to the company when they were severed and extracted from the forest land.

Issue (ii): Whether the enhanced rate of Rs. 20 per ton applied to bamboos cut before 16-01-1969 but removed later, and whether the excess amount recovered was refundable.

Analysis: The enhanced government order operated only from 16-01-1969 and covered bamboos removed under that regime. It did not apply retrospectively to bamboos already cut and stacked under the earlier permission. Since the earlier lot had already been appropriated by the company before the revised rate became operative, the later demand at Rs. 20 per ton was unsustainable, and the excess amount collected was wrongly retained.

Conclusion: The enhanced rate did not apply to the earlier-cut bamboos, and the excess amount recovered was refundable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the cross-objection succeeded, and the company was entitled to refund of the excess amount together with interest for the relevant period.

Ratio Decidendi: In a contract for sale of forest produce amounting to sale of unascertained goods, property passes when the goods are severed and ascertained, and a later enhancement in rate cannot be applied to goods already appropriated before the enhanced regime takes effect.

---