BIMAL KUMAR Vs. RAM LAL AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued in the following circumstances: One-third share of a garden comprises in khasra Nos. 5831, 5846 and 5853, situated in Mauza Gohana, District Rohtak, was mortgages with possession by its original owner Atma Ram in favour of Ch. Benarsi Das and Ch. Lajpat Rai on 12th of July, 1922, for a sum of Rs. 325/-. Later in 1924 Atma Ram sold his equity of redemption in the aforesaid share in the garden to one Mahamud-ul-Hassan, who migrated as a result of the partition of the country in 1947 and is now represented by the Custodian Evacuee Property. Proceedings were taken under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act of 1951 and the competent officer appointed under the Act took action under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the aforesaid Act which is to the following effect:

(2.) The interpretation of the word 'agricultural', 'agricultural purpose' and 'agricultural income' came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Commr. of Income-tax v. Benoy Kumar (S) AIR 1957 SC 768. The question that arose for decision was whether income derived from a forest which was originally of spontaneous growth but a portion of which was replanted would fall within the purview of 'agricultural income'. In a detailed judgment Bhagwati J. thoroughly discussed the meaning of word 'agricultural' in its root sense as well as its extended meaning. The relevant portion of the headnote (d) is as follows:

(3.) Applying the above principles to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court it was observed at page 790 of the report as follows: