Fishery rights as immovable property: grant attracts stamp duty, while a nine-month lease avoids compulsory registration.

The right to catch fish in a tank was treated as a benefit arising out of land and, therefore, an immovable property in the nature of a profit a prendre. On that basis, the grant was held liable to stamp duty, and where statutory conditions are met, to registration. However, a lease for nine months did not meet the statutory threshold for compulsory registration, since such registration is required only for leases from year to year, for terms exceeding one year, or reserving yearly rent. The instrument remained chargeable to stamp duty, but compulsory registration was not attracted by duration alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the right to catch fish in a tank is a profit a prendre and therefore an immovable property exigible to stamp duty and, in appropriate cases, compulsory registration. (ii) Whether the instrument for the nine-month grant was compulsorily registrable.

Issue (i): Whether the right to catch fish in a tank is a profit a prendre and therefore an immovable property exigible to stamp duty and, in appropriate cases, compulsory registration.

Analysis: The right to catch fish from a tank is a benefit arising out of land and falls within the inclusive concept of immovable property. A profit a prendre, when it consists of such a benefit, is not outside the Registration Act or the Stamp Act. The instrument granting such a right, therefore, attracts stamp duty and, where the statutory conditions are met, registration. The character of the document as a lease was accepted for the purpose of deciding the appeals.

Conclusion: The right is an immovable property in the nature of a profit a prendre and the grant is an instrument liable to stamp duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the instrument for the nine-month grant was compulsorily registrable.

Analysis: A lease of immovable property is compulsorily registrable only when it is from year to year, for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent. A lease for nine months does not satisfy that threshold. It remains chargeable to stamp duty, but compulsory registration is not attracted merely by reason of its duration.

Conclusion: The nine-month instrument was not compulsorily registrable, though it remained liable to stamp duty.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by sustaining the view that the fishery right was an instrument attracting stamp duty, while granting relief only in respect of compulsory registration for the nine-month lease; the longer lease continued to require both stamp duty and registration.

Ratio Decidendi: A right to catch fish from a tank is a benefit arising out of land and hence an immovable property, so its grant is chargeable to stamp duty, and compulsory registration depends on whether the lease falls within the statutory duration specified for registrable leases.

---