JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Deoki Pande was auction-purchaser, at a rent execution sale, of a holding of Gokul Rai and others; he took delivery of possession on 16 July 1931.

(2.) There were bamboo clumps standing on the land. Some weeks later, the petitioners cut and removed all the bamboos, 236 in number. They have been, for this act, prosecuted and convicted under Section 379, I. P.C. It was contended for them in the trial that they were in possession of the land since several years; by virtue of purchase from the original raiyat; but this plea was not accepted. It is argued in revision that though in the findings of the Courts below possession of the lands has passed to the complainant, it does not follow that possession of the bamboos also passed.

(3.) Standing crops it is pointed out are included in the definition of "moveable property" in Section 2(13), Civil P. C; and standing timber, growing crops and grass are excluded from the definition of "immovable property" in Section 3, T. P. Act. In Section 3(25), General Clauses Act on the other hand "immovable property" has a wider definition which would include standing crop, etc. The sale and delivery of possession, it is argued, referred to immovable property; and therefore it is contended the right to the possession over moveable property on the land did not pass.