Case Law PROPERTY

LAW
Presentation RAINA DUA
Case Details
Case Name Shrimati Shantabai vs
State of Bombay

Case 1958 AIR SC

Citation 532

Court Supreme
Court
Facts
The petitioners husband Balirambhau
doye was a zamindar of Pandharpur .
On 26t April 1948 he executed an
unregistered document that called itself
a lease in favor of his wife .
The deed gives the petitioner the right
to enter upon certain areas in the
zamindari in order to cut and take out
the bamboos, fuel wood and teak.
 Facts
• The term of the deed is from 26th April 1948, to
26th December 1960, and its consideration is Rs.
26000.
The Petitioner applied to the Deputy
Commissioner and obtained from him an order
of permitting her to work in the forest and
started cutting the trees.
The Divisional Forest Officer took action
against her and passed an order directing that
her name might be cancelled and the cut
materials forfeited.

 Facts
• The Petitioner then moved the
State Government against this
order but there was no effect.

 Was her Is timber a

Issues fundamental right movable property
voilated ? or immovable
property ?
 • Ananda Behra v. State of

Cases Orissa1955 SCR 919.

• Chotabhai Jethabhai Patel
and Co.V State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 108.
 Analysis of the Law

Firstly, the petitioner has filed for the infringement of her

fundamental rights (Art. 19 1 (f) and (g) of the Constitution) on
the basis of a document which is titled as "lease deed" with it's
own clauses, terms and conditions.
Our Vision
The Judges state that the document is just a license granted to
her ‚thus in this case the right acquired by her would be either
in the nature of some profit or Barely personal right under a
contract Held by Justice
According to Justice Bose , the document was not a lease but
amounted to a license ,which stated that to cut the certain
trees and then carry away the wood ,in other words is a profit
appendre, he also says the deed required registration under
the act, , and thus did not pass any title or interest for which
the petitioner Lofannot enterce, any fundamental right.

 Analysis of the Laws

• Secondly, trees are immovable property because

they are attached or rooted to the earth, except
standing timber ,crops and grass. Here as standing
timber it must be in a state such if cut it could be
used as timber ‚the legal basis of rule is that trees
that are not cut continue to draw nourishment from
soil and that benefit of this goes to the grante.
The Judgement
The petition filled under Article
32 of the Constitution seeking
protection for the rights infringed
of the Part III (Fundamental
Rights) same constitution is being
"dismissed "by the honorable
Supreme Court with costs.
Reason:
There has been no such violation of
any of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner as submitted before the
honorable Supreme Court.
thank you