( 56 )
PERERA v. PONNATCHI.
D. C., Ghilaw, 1,10111,390.
Agreement of sale of tobacco crop—Fructus industriales—Evidence—Interest in land.
A tobeteco crop is fructus industriales, and is not an interest in landrequiring that any agreement respecting it should be notarial.
rI THE plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of the sumJ- of Rs. 1,030, being balance purchase money of a tobacco cropwhich the plaintiff alleged had been sold by him to the defendant.The crop had not been severed from the plants at the date of thealleged sale. The defendant denied the sale, and the plaintiff ledoral evidence in support of it, and obtained judgment in his favour.
On appeal by the defendant—
Dornhorst and Rudra, for appellant.
Wendt, for respondent.
3rd November, 1897. Browne, A.J.—
Till I read in the evidence in this case that tobacco leaves wereplucked from “ trees,” I never previously had heard that thismember of the vegetable kingdom was a “ tree.” I had alwaysthought it would not be called even a “ shrub,” but only a “ plant.”
• And when in the district wherein it is largely cultivated thelearned .District Judge, without contradiction from parties orcounsel, characterizes the thing grown as “plants,” which must beplanted annually, I must hold his description to be correct, andthat, we are still concluded by the decision in 10,286, Negombo(Nell, 112), repeated in 1,056, C. R. Ratnapura (Ram. 1860-62,p. 101), that a tobacco crop is fructus industriales, and is not aninterest in land requiring that any agreement respecting it should benotarial. As regards the other matters Suggested in argument, I haveperused the evidence and fail to find there exists contradictionswhich would leave me to infer the decision is erroneous.
I would affirm the judgment with costs.
Lawme, A.C.J.—T agree.
PERERA v. PONNATCHI