Sale of tree produce treated as movable property; unregistered memorandum of oral bargain remained binding and provable.
An agreement for the sale of the produce of trees was treated as a transaction in movable property, because growing crops are excluded from immovable property under the Registration Act and the fact that the crop was not yet in existence did not convert the arrangement into an interest in land; registration was therefore not required. A written but unregistered memorandum that merely recorded a prior oral bargain, without words of actual transfer, was treated as evidencing the agreement rather than creating it; it could be proved by evidence aliunde and was binding on the executant.
Issues: (i) Whether a contract for sale of a mango crop not in existence at the time of the contract related to movable or immovable property and required registration; (ii) Whether a written but unregistered memorandum executed by the purchaser, promising to pay for future crops orally agreed to be purchased, was binding and provable.
Issue (i): Whether a contract for sale of a mango crop not in existence at the time of the contract related to movable or immovable property and required registration.
Analysis: Growing crops were excluded from immovable property and treated as movable property under the Registration Act. The absence of the crop at the precise moment of the arrangement did not change the character of the subject matter, since the agreement concerned the produce of the trees and not an interest in land. The distinction drawn by the defendants was rejected as artificial.
Conclusion: The contract was one relating only to movable property and did not require registration.
Issue (ii): Whether a written but unregistered memorandum executed by the purchaser, promising to pay for future crops orally agreed to be purchased, was binding and provable.
Analysis: The writing contained no words of actual transfer and was treated as a mere memorandum recording what had already been agreed orally. On that footing, registration was unnecessary, and the obligation could be established by evidence aliunde.
Conclusion: The unregistered memorandum was binding and could be proved against the executant.
Final Conclusion: Both questions were answered in favour of treating the transaction as a movable-property arrangement and in favour of admitting proof of the unregistered writing as a memorandum of an oral bargain.
Ratio Decidendi: An agreement for the sale of the produce of trees is a transaction in movable property, and a writing that merely records an oral bargain without effecting transfer does not require registration.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
