IMPORTANT POINTS
• Thus trees which were not attained stoppage of process of vegetation and further growth are not “standing timber” as defined under Section 2(6) of the Registration Act, 1908. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in Shantabai's case (supra) squarely applicable and hence it cannot be brought under the purview of 'movable property'.
• Trees which were not attained stoppage of process of vegetation and further growth are not “standing timber” as defined under Section 2(6) of the Registration Act, 1908. The principle laid down by the Apex Court in Smt.Shanthabai v. State of Bombay and others, AIR 1958 SC 532 squarely applicable and hence it cannot be brought under the purview of 'movable property'.
• The trees which were not cut and removed would not constitute “standing timbers”, but would come under the ambit of “growing trees” within the meaning of “immovable property” as on the date of sale in the year 1970. There was no stoppage of process of vegetation or further growth within a reasonable time, but the same were allowed to grow further for a long period of 18 years which would satisfy the ingredients which constitute the expression “immovable property.

1. This appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree of both the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for injunction. Cross objection was also preferred by the plaintiff.

2. The subject matter of the suit is the trees standing on a landed property scheduled in the plaint. The plaintiff is none else, the brother-in-law of the defendant and the son-in-law of defendant's mother. The plaintiff claims that the trees standing on the property covered by a gift deed of the year 1970 was sold to him by the mother-in-law prior to the execution of the gift deed. The sale of trees made mentioned in the gift deed and the gift was given to the defendant, subject to the said sale. Hence the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendant from obstructing the cut and removal of those trees from the property.

3. The defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation. Some of the trees situated in the property were cut and removed in the year 1970 by the plaintiff in accordance with the alleged sale. The cut and removal of the remaining trees was objected which has resulted in a suit by the plaintiff against the sister of the defendant in O.S.No.460/1970. The present suit was filed after the lapse of more than 18 years. There is no substantial prayer in the suit to adjudicate the disputed title over the trees situated in the property.

4. Both the trial court and the first appellate court rejected the contention of the defendant including the question of limitation and decreed the suit concurrently, but with a modification by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant came up with this appeal.

5. Besides the substantial questions which were framed at the time of admission of appeal, the following questions also came up for consideration:

(1) Whether the trial court and the first appellate court are justified in holding that the suit is not barred by limitation ?

(2) What is the nature of subject matter of the sale ? Whether it would satisfy the term “standing timbers” within the meaning of “movable property” or “growing trees” within the meaning of “immovable property”, and whether it requires registration? What would be the legal position, when the subject matter found to be both “standing timbers” and “growing trees”?

6. There is no much dispute with respect to the fact that the mother-in-law Nagur Umma had given the trees situated in the property to her son-in-law, the plaintiff for consideration, the amount expended by him in connection with her treatment. It has find a place in Ext.A1 gift deed dated 21.8.1970, wherein the donor has specified the existence of sale with respect to the trees standing on the property to the plaintiff. Admittedly some of the trees were cut and removed in the year 1970. The dispute is pertaining to the trees which were not cut and removed and allowed to be grown for a long period of 18 years and the plaintiff claims that the trees which were not cut and removed form part of the sale and that he is entitled to cut and remove the same.

7. The definition given to the expression “movable property” and “immovable property” under various enactments assumes importance at this juncture. Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act defines “immovable property” as follows :

“immovable property” does not include standing timber, growing crops or grass” (emphasis supplied)

But the expression “movable property” is not defined anywhere in the Transfer of Property Act. The expression “Immovable property” also defined under Section 2(6) of the Registration Act, besides the definition given to “movable property” under Section 2(9) which read as follows :

2(6) -“immovable property” includes land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to ways, lights, ferries, fisheries or any other benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth, but not standing timber, gr