1978 (1) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vour of Messrs. Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. in the year 1947. By efflux of time the said lease came to an end on March 31, 1967. On March 27, 1967, during the subsistence of the lease, there was a partition amongst Shivappa Karachi and his sons. At that partition the lands in question were allotted to the shares of A.S.Karachi, V. S. Karachi and J. S. Karachi, the sons of Shivappa Karachi, who are petitioners in these three petitions. The lessee did not hand over possession of the lands to the petitioners herein immediately after the expiry of the period of lease. After some negotiations they were handed back to the possession of the petitioners on September 2, 1967, along with the standing sugarcane crop. The petitioners carried on some further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en grown ; that they had carried on agricultural operations after September 2, 1967 ; and, that they had received the income during the relevant year. S. 2(1)(a)(2)(i) of the Act defines " agricultural income " as any income derived from land which is used for growing any commercial crop by agriculture. It is not disputed that the sugarcane in question had been raised by the petitioners by carrying on agricultural operations though the lessee had carried on such operations till September 2, 1967. Subsequent to September 2, 1967, agricultural operations had been carried on by the petitioners in order to derive the income in question. It is seen from the facts narrated above that all the ingredients which are required to make an income " agri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e not agricultural operations, but were only incidental to the harvesting of the tobacco crop and that he had no interest in the land as owner, tenant or mortgagee with possession, etc. That is not the case, however, in these cases. There was a time lag of nearly four months between the date on which the petitioners got possession of the lands from the lessees and the date on which the sugarcane crop was harvested by them and the sugarcane crop was not ripe for harvesting on the date on which they got possession of the lands. Hence, no assistance can be derived by the petitioners from the decision of the High Court of Madras. One other contention urged by Sri G. Sarangan is that since the sugarcane crop which was standing on the land was a....