KING-EMPEROR Vs. ALEXANDER ALLAN
LAWS(PVC)-1901-10-28
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on October 18,1901

KING-EMPEROR Appellant
VERSUS
ALEXANDER ALLAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an appeal preferred on behalf of Government from a judgment of the Bench of Magistrates in Ootacamund acquitting the defendant Mr. Allan who had been prosecuted by the Municipality under Section 103 of the Madras Municipalities Act (IV of 1884 as amended by Act III of 1897).
(2.) The only question which has arisen for decision at the hearing of this appeal is as to whether all or any portion of the lands owned by Mr. Allan, the details as to which are given in exhibit D, should be held to be lands used solely for agricultural purposes and as such exempted from the enhanced rates of taxation that may be imposed in certain cases under Section 63, Sub-section 3 of the Madras Municipalities Act.
(3.) The expression "agricultural" is not defined in the Act. The only decisions of this Court to which our attention has been drawn in which an attempt has been made to define the word "agricultural" are that of Kunhayen Haji V/s. Mayan I.L.R. 17 Mad. 98, where it was held that a lease of a coffee garden or a lease of certain coffee plants in a garden, for as to this the judgment is not very clear, is not an agricultural lease within the meaning of Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act and the judgment in Civil Revision Petition No. 337 of 1900 Murugesa Chetti V/s. Chinnathambi Goundan I.L.R. 24 Mad. 421 in which it has been decided that a lease of land for betel cultivation should be held to be an agricultural lease in so far as that section is concerned.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.