013-NLR-NLR-V-46-THAMBIPILLAI-Appellant-and-KANDIAH-et-al.-Respondent.pdf
JAYETILiEKE .1.—Thambipillai and Kanjdiah.
47
1944Present: Jayetileke J.
THAMBIPILLAI, Appellant, and KAXDIAH et al., Respondents.153— C. li. Jaffna, 15,544.
Movableproperly—Standingtobaccocrop—Seizureinexecution—Civil
Procedure Code, s. 227.
A standing tobacco crop is movable property for purposes of seizureunder the Civil Procedure Code.
^^PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Jaffna.
N. Kumarasingham for the appellant.
H. IP. Thambiah for the respondents.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 21, 1944. Jayetileke J.—
This is a simple case. In execution of a decree entered against thefirst and second defendants in action Xo. 7,922 of the District Court ofJaffna, the Fiscal seized a tobacco crop standing on a land called Nadun-kanny, on May 8, 1943. He treated the crop as movable property andeffected the seizure in the manner indicated in section 227 of the CivilProcedure code. On May 9, 1943, the first and second defendants andtheir son-in-law, the third defendant, reaped and removed the crop thatwas under seizure. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this action forthe recovery of Rs. 250 as damages. The learned Commissioner dismissedthe action on the ground that the evidence as to the seizure was conflicting.It seems to me that the judgment cannot be supported on this ground.The officer who effected the seizure has given very definite evidence as towhat he did. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary there is noreason why • his evidence should not be accepted. Counsel for therespondent sought to support the judgment on the ground that the46/10
48
JAYETILEKE J.—Thambipillai and Kandiah.
seizure was bad in law. He urged that a standing crop should be treatedas immovable property for the purposes of seizure under the Civil ProcedureCode and relied on the following decisions of the Indian Courts: JwalaDei v. Pirbha 1; Maddya v. Yenkatta 2; and Sadu v. Sambha 3. I do notthink any guidance is to be found from these decisions which turned uponthe definition of the expression “ immovable property ” in the GeneralClauses Acts of 1868 and 1887. The definition reads: —
“ Immovable property shall include land, benefits to arise out ofland, and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened toanything attached to the earth.”
Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the case of Perera v.Perera * in which it was held that an agreement in respect of atobacco crop need not be notarially executed inasmuch as a tobacco cropis fructus industriales.
In the case of Lee Hedges & Co. v. Saville 5 it was pointed out that asregards contracts affecting crops and vegetation a distinction has to bedrawn between fructus naturales and fructus industriales. The formerexpression applies to crops which draw their nourishment principallyfrom the soil and the latter to crop produced by the manual labour ofman in sowing and reaping, planting and gathering. Growing crops iffructus naturales, are part of the soil before severence and an agreementin respect of them is governed by section 2 of the Prevention of FraudsOrdinance (Cap. 57). Growing crops if fructus industriales are chattelsand an agreement in respect of them is governed by the Sale of GoodsOrdinance (Cap. 70). Tobacco is sown, cultivated and reaped annually.It is produced essentially by the-labour of man and must be consideredas fructus industriales. The seizure of the crop has, in my opinion, beenproperly made. I would accordingly set aside the judgment appealedfrom and send the case back for issues 4 and 5 to be decided. Theappellant is entitled to the costs of appeal. All other costs will abide thefinal result.
Appeal allowed.
» I. L. R. 14 AU. 35.
3 I. L. R. 11 Mad. 193.
3 8 S. C. C. 21.
31. L. R. 6 Bom. 592.* 3 N. L. R. 56.