Exclusive right to collect forest produce is a profit a prendre; prior unregistered grant may be protected by part performance.
A grant conferring an exclusive right to enter land and sever tendu leaves is treated as a profit a prendre, not a mere licence, and therefore constitutes immovable property requiring registration. An earlier unregistered grant may still be protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act where the grantee has acted on it and the later claimant had notice of the prior transaction. Where exclusive grants overlap, each operates only to the extent permitted by the sequence of rights in time: the earlier protected right prevails for its covered period, while the later grant is effective only for the remaining period.
Issues: (i) Whether the right granted to collect tendu leaves was a mere licence or a profit a prendre amounting to a benefit arising out of land and therefore immovable property requiring registration; (ii) whether section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act protected the earlier unregistered grant in favour of defendant 1 firm against the plaintiff and against the grantor and those claiming under him; (iii) what was the effect of the overlapping exclusive grants on the parties' respective rights and on the plaintiff's claim for injunction and damages.
Issue (i): Whether the right granted to collect tendu leaves was a mere licence or a profit a prendre amounting to a benefit arising out of land and therefore immovable property requiring registration.
Analysis: The grant was not treated as a lease of the leaves themselves, but as a right to enter upon land and sever something attached to it. A licence by itself did not create an interest in property, but the grant of the right to take leaves from the land was held to be a profit a prendre. Such a right was regarded as a benefit to arise out of land and, therefore, as immovable property. It fell within the category of documents requiring registration under the Registration Act.
Conclusion: The grant was immovable property in the nature of a profit a prendre and required registration.
Issue (ii): Whether section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act protected the earlier unregistered grant in favour of defendant 1 firm against the plaintiff and against the grantor and those claiming under him.
Analysis: The earlier grantee had acted under the unregistered grant and had paid substantial sums under it. The Court found that the plaintiff had notice of that prior transaction from the history of the dealings, the business relations between the parties, the open and notorious nature of the collecting operations, and the surrounding disputes. On those facts, the protection of part performance was available, and the grantor could not assert a contrary right against the transferee or one claiming under him for the protected period.
Conclusion: Section 53-A applied, and the earlier unregistered grantee was protected against interference for the period covered by that transaction.
Issue (iii): What was the effect of the overlapping exclusive grants on the parties' respective rights and on the plaintiff's claim for injunction and damages.
Analysis: The two exclusive grants could not both operate for the same overlapping period. The later grant could not displace the earlier protected rights for the period already covered by the earlier transaction, but it was effective to confer rights after the earlier term ended. The result was a split in time: each grantee had exclusive rights only for the period that remained legally available under the sequence of grants. The plaintiff therefore could not recover damages for the period when the defendant firm was still entitled to collect, but was entitled to prospective protection for the later period falling within his own effective grant.
Conclusion: The plaintiff failed in respect of leaves collected during the protected earlier period, but succeeded in obtaining declaration and injunction for the later period; the appellant firm succeeded only partly.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed only to the limited extent that the earlier collecting right of defendant 1 firm was upheld for the protected period, while the plaintiff's right was recognised only for the later period and prospective injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: A grant conferring an exclusive right to sever and remove natural produce from land is a profit a prendre and immovable property requiring registration, and where part performance protects an earlier grantee with notice to the later claimant, overlapping grants operate only to the extent that each can take effect in time without defeating the earlier protected right.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
