This second appeal has been preferred by the Udipi Municipal Council whose suit for the recovery of Rs. 103-5-9 as arrears of property tax due from the three defendants has been dismissed by the Courts below. The tax is sought to be levied under section 81(3) of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 6 acres and 38 cents of vacant land belonging to the defendants and situate within the limits of the Municipality. The defendants here respondents, resist the claim on the grounds that they should have been assessed to property tax under section 81(4) of the Act and not under section 81(3) and they should have been separately and individually assessed on the share of the property held by each of them. Their contentions were accepted by the Courts below. It is unnecessary to set out other defences which are not now material.

The appellant urged two points before me (i) the assessment in this case was rightly made under section 81(3) of the Act, and (ii) even otherwise, it is not open to the civil Court to decide on the propriety of the assessment in this case. Lands which are not used exclusively for agricultural purposes are taxable on a percentage of their capital value under section 81(3), while lands used exclusively for agricultural purposes are taxable on a proportion of their annual value under section 81(4). The burden of the tax is lighter in the latter case than in the former. The property in question is a vacant land overgrown with a few wild plants and shrubs of spontaneous growth whose leaves are said to be used as manure for cultivable lands. The question is whether when the vacant site in question has never been ploughed, tilled or sown at any time and no tree or shrub has been planted by the owner, it could be said that the land has been used exclusively for agricultural purposes merely because the leaves of the shrubs growing on the plot are used for manuring other lands.

It has been held that income derived from forest trees of spontaneous growth and jungle fruits is not “agricultural income” within the meaning of the Incometax Act. Yuvaraja of Pitapuram v. Commissioner of Income-tax1 , Province of Bihar v. Maharaja Pratab Udainath Sahi Deo2. Under the Income-tax Act “agricultural income” means income derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes. In Kaju Mal v. Saligram3 , the Judicial Committee affirmed a decision of the Lahore High Court to the effect that a bit of natural forest which did not lie within a village site was exempt from pre-emption as it was not agricultural land or land used for purposes subservient to agriculture. In Kesho Prasad Singh v. Sheo Prakash Ojka4, it was held that a mango tope was not land used for agricultural purposes within the meaning of section 79 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901. “Agriculture” in its ordinary and primary sense implies the tillage or cultivation of the soil by human effort with or without the aid of animal or mechanical power. It is also used in a wider sense to cover the allied pursuits of harvesting and gathering in the crops and the rearing of live stock, see Kadirvelsami Naicker v. Sultan Ahmed5 . An anthology of Indian decisions on this topic will be found in Sarojini Devi v. Subramaniam6 , where this Court held that mango grove was “agricultural land within the meaning of the Hindu Women’s Property Act.” The meaning of the expressions “agricultural”, “agricultural land” and “agricultural purposes” would depend upon the definitions of these terms in various enactments and the object and purpose of such enactments. In Emperor v. Alexander Allen7, it was held that pasture lands must be considered to be lands used solely “for agricultural purposes” within the meaning of section 63 of the Madras District Municipalities Act of 1884 as amended in 1897 which was then in force. The language of section 81(4) of the Act is similar and applies to land used “exclusively for agricultural purposes”. If a piece of urb