Property Law

Suresh Chand v. Kundan

(2001) 10 SCC 221

Facts

Kundan and Mohar Singh jointly owned agricultural land in Village Amarpur, Bulandshahr.
In 1969, they agreed to sell the land to Suresh Chand.
When they failed to execute the sale deed, Suresh Chand instituted a suit for specific performance.
The litigation continued for approximately twenty-five years.
During that period, the plants and saplings existing on the land grew into full-grown trees.
Suresh Chand ultimately obtained a decree for specific performance.
During execution, Kundan objected that the agreement covered only the land and not the trees standing upon it.
He argued that possession of the land could not be delivered together with the trees because the trees had never been expressly sold.
The High Court permitted Suresh Chand to obtain the land but suggested that Kundan could continue taking the fruits from the trees.

Whether a transfer of land automatically includes trees and saplings rooted in it.
Whether the vendor could retain rights in the trees when the agreement contained no express reservation.

Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act treats trees and shrubs rooted in the earth as “attached to the earth.”
Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act includes things attached to the earth within immovable property.
Section 8 TPA provides that, unless a contrary intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer passes:
the transferor’s entire transferable interest; and
the legal incidents attached to the property.
Therefore, a transfer of land ordinarily includes standing trees, buildings and other things attached to it.
A vendor may exclude trees, but the exclusion must appear expressly or by necessary implication.

At the time of the agreement, the land contained plants and saplings rather than fully developed trees.
These saplings were rooted in the earth and therefore formed part of the land.
Their later growth did not give the vendor a new and separate proprietary interest.
The trees were simply the developed form of what had already been attached to the land when the agreement was made.
The Court emphasised that a vendor selling his right, title and interest in land ordinarily transfers everything embedded in or legally incident to that land.
Nothing in the agreement stated that:
the saplings were excluded;
Kundan retained a right to remove them;
Kundan retained the fruits; or
the purchaser would receive only the bare soil.
The High Court’s approach of separating ownership of the land from the right to enjoy the trees therefore contradicted Section 8.
The Court distinguished two different transactions:
when land is sold, standing trees ordinarily pass with it;
when trees alone are sold for cutting and removal, the land itself does not pass.
The present case concerned the first category: sale of the land itself.
Kundan could have reserved the trees before entering the agreement, but having failed to do so, he could not introduce such a reservation at the execution stage.

The trees and saplings passed with the land.
The absence of an express or implied exclusion meant that Suresh Chand acquired the land together with everything attached to it.
Kundan had no separate right to retain the trees or their fruits.
The Supreme Court set aside the contrary part of the High Court’s order.