1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated 26.8.1994 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in State of M.P. v. Santosh Jaiswal and State of M.P. v. Surendra Shukla. The question canvassed before the Division Bench was whether the right to catch fish in the tank granted in favour of the appellants was in the nature of a lease or licence, an instrument compulsorily registrable under the Indian Registration Act and liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. The Division Bench held that they were leases in respect of Santosh Jaiswal case LPAs Nos. 21 and 21 of 1994 for a period of nine months and in Surendra Shukla case LPA No. 21 of 1994 for more than one year. In the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, it was stated that the lease was for more than two years.

3. Shri Pramod Swarup, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that it is only a licence and that, therefore, it is neither an instrument compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act nor liable to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. We do not agree with the learned counsel. It is true that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition found that it was a licence but not a lease but before the Division Bench controversy whether what was granted to the appellant is a licence or a lease was not put in issue. On the other hand, it proceeded on the premise that they were leases. The appellants have not even raised any contention in the SLP nor have they placed any document before us. Under these circumstances, we would proceed on the premise that they are leases. The contention raised in the High Court was that since profit a prendre is not an immovable property and that, therefore, it is not a compulsorily registrable instrument. That contention was rejected by the High Court.

4. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act defines' 'immovable property".

It does not include standing timber, growing crop or grass. Clause (26) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act is equivalent to section 2 (18) of the M.P. General Clauses Act which defines immovable property thus:

"2. (18) 'Immovable property' shall include land, benefits, to arise out of land and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth."

5. Section 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act provides that certain documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the specified date.

By virtue of section 17 (1) (c) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent is compulsorily registrable instrument. This Court considered the controversy in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145] and held that if the profit a prendre is a tangible immovable property; its sale has to be by means of a registered instrument in case its value exceeds Rs. 100. If it is intangible, the sale is required by section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be effected by a registered instrument, whatever its value. Therefore, in either situation the grant of the profit a prendre has-to be by means of a registered instrument.

6. Since the definition of "immovable property" in M.P. General clauses Act includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth, the question is whether the right to catch fish is a benefit to arise out of the land. It cannot be controverted that catching fish from the tank would be a benefit arising out of the land. Therefore, it is an immovable property. Even though it is profit a prendre, since it is a benefit to arise from the land, it is an immovable property. If its value is more than Rs. 100 or the lease is on year to year basis, it is a compulsorily registrable instrument under section 17 (1) (c) of the Indian Registration Act. It is an