Summarize the following court judgment. 104 of 1957. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights. R. V. section Mani	 for the petitioner. 267 H. N. Sanyal	 Additional Solicitor General of India	 R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar for respondents	 Nos. 1 3. N.N. Keshwani	 for I. N. Shroff	 for respondent No. 4. 1958. March 24. The Judgment of Das C. J. Venkatarama Aiyar	 section K. Das and Sarkar JJ. was delivered by Das C. J. Bose J. delivered a separate Judgment. DAS C. J. We have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by our learned Brother Bose J. which he will presently read. While we agree with him that this application must be dismissed	 we would prefer to base our decision on reasons slightly different from those adopted by our learned Brother. The relevant facts will be found fully set out by him in his judgment. The petitioner has come up before us on an application under article 32 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the order made by the respondent No. 3 on March 19	 1956	 directing the petitioner to stop the cutting of forest wood and for a writ	 order or direction to the respondents not to interfere in any manner whatever with the rights of the petitioner to enter the forests	 appoint her agents	 obtain renewal passes	 manufacture charcoal and to exercise other rights mentioned in the petition. Since the application is under article 32 of the Constitution	 the petitioner must make out that there has been an infringement of some fundamental right claimed by her. The petitioner 's grievance is that the offending order has infringed her fundamental right under article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g). She claims to have derived the fundamental rights	 which are alleged to have been infringed	 from a document dated April 26	 1948	 whereby her husband Shri Balirambhau Doye	 the proprietor of certain forests in eight several Tehsils	 granted to her the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood Building wood	 fuel wood and bamboos	 etc. from the said forests for a period from the 268 date of the document up to December 26	 1960. The terms of the document have been sufficiently set out in the judgment to be presently delivered by Bose J. and need not be set out here. The petitioner has paid Rs. 26	000 as consideration for the rights granted to her. The genuineness of this document and the good faith of the parties thereto have not been questioned. The document	 however	 has not been registered under the Indian Registration Act. The nature of the rights claimed by the petitioner has to be ascertained on a proper interpretation of the aforesaid document. We do not consider it necessary to examine or analyse the document minutely or to finally determine what we may regard as the true meaning and effect thereof	 for	 as will be presently seen	 whatever construction be put on this document	 the petitioner cannot complain of the breach of any of her fundamental rights. If the document is construed as conveying to her any part or share in the proprietary right of the grantor	 then	 not being registered under the Indian Registration Act	 the document does not affect the immoveable property or give her any right to any share or interest in the immoveable property. Assuming that she had acquired a share or interest in the proprietary right in spite of the document not having been registered	 even then that right has vested in the State under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates	 Mahals	 Alienated Lands) Act	 1950	 and she may in that case only claim compensation if any is payable to her under the Act. If the document is construed as purely a license granted to her to enter upon the land	 then that license must be taken to have become extinguished as soon as the grantor 's proprietary rights in the land vested in the State under section 3 of the Act. if the document is construed as a license coupled with a grant	 then the right acquired by her would be either in the nature of some profits a prendre which	 being an interest in land	 is immoveable property or a purely personal right under a contract. If the document is construed as having given her a profits a prendre which is an interest in land	 then also 269 the document will not affect the immoveable property and will not operate to transmit to the petitioner any such profits a prendre which is in the nature of ' immoveable property	 as the document has not been registered under the Indian Registration Act	 as has been held in Ananda Behera vs The State of Orissa (1). If it is a purely personal right	 then such right will have no higher efficacy than a right acquired under a contract. If	 therefore	 the document is construed as a matter of contract	 then assuming but without deciding that a contract is a property within articles 19(1)(f) or 31(1) of the Constitution	 she cannot com plain	 for the State has not acquired or taken possession of her contract in any way. The State is not a party to the contract and claims no benefit under it. The petitioner is still the owner and is still in possession of that contract	 regarded as her property	 and she can hold it or dispose of it as she likes and if she can find a purchaser. The petitioner is free to sue the grantor upon that contract and recover damages by way of compensation. The State is not a party to the contract and is not bound by the contract and accordingly acknowledges no liability under the contract which being purely personal does not run with the land. If the petitioner maintains that	 by some process not quite apparent	 the State is also bound by that contract	 even then she	 as the owner of that contract	 can only seek to enforce the contract in the ordinary way and sue the State if she be so advised	 as to which we say nothing	 and claim whatever damages or compensation she may be entitled to for the alleged breach of it. This aspect of the matter does not appear to have been brought to the notice of this Court when it decided the case of Chhotabai Jethabai Patel and Co. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (2) and had it been so done	 we have no doubt that case would not have been decided in the way it was done. For the reasons stated above	 whatever rights	 if any	 may have accrued to the petitioner under that document on any of the several interpretations noted above	 the cannot complain of the infringement by the (1) ; 	 (2) ; 270 State of any fundamental right for the enforcement of which alone a petition under article 32 is maintainable. We	 therefore	 agree that this petition should be dismissed with costs. BOSE J. This is a writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution in which the petitioner claims that her fundamental right to cut and collect timber in the forests in question has been infringed. The petitioner 's husband	 Balirambhau Doye	 was the Zamindar of Pandharpur. On April 26	 1948	 he executed an unregistered document	 that called itself a lease	 in favour of his wife	 the petitioner. The deed gives her the right to enter upon certain areas in the zamindari in order to cut and take out bamboos	 fuel wood and teak. Certain restrictions are put on the cutting	 and the felling of certain trees is prohibited. But in the main	 that is the substance of the right. The term of the deed is from April 26	 1948 to December 26	 1960	 and the consideration is Rs. 26	000. The petitioner says that she worked the forests till 1950. In that year the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates	 Mahals	 Alienated Lands) Act	 1950	 which came into force on January 26	 1951	 was enacted. Under section 3 of that Act	 all proprietary rights in the land vest in the State on and from the date fixed in a notification issued under sub section The date fixed for the vesting in this area was March 31	 1951. After that	 the petitioner was stopped from cutting any more trees. She therefore applied to the Deputy Commissioner	 Bhandara	 under section 6(2) of the Act for validating the lease. The Deputy Commissioner held	 on August 16	 1955	 that the section did not apply because it only applied to transfers made after March 16	 1950	 whereas the petitioner 's transfer was made on April 26	 1948. But	 despite that	 he went on to hold that the Act did not apply to transfers made before March 16	 1950	 and so leases before that could not be questioned. He also held that the lease was genuine and ordered that the petitioner be allowed to work the forests subject to the conditions set out in 271 her lease and to the rules framed under section 218(A) of the C. P. Land Revenue Act. It seems that the petitioner claimed compensation from Government for being ousted from the forests from 1951 to 1955 but gave up the claim on the understanding that she would be allowed to work the forests for the remaining period of the term in accordance with the Deputy Commissioner 's order dated August 16	 1955. She thereupon went to the Divisional Forest Officer at Bhandara and asked for permission to work the forests in accordance with the above order. She applied twice and	 as all the comfort she got was a letter saying that her claim was being examined	 she seems to have taken the law into her own hands	 entered the forests and started cutting the trees; or so the Divisional Forest Officer says. The Divisional Forest Officer thereupon took action against her for unlawful cutting and directed that her name be cancelled and that the cut materials be forfeited. This was on March 19	 1956. Because of this	 the petitioner went up to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and made an application dated September 27	 1956	 asking that the Divisional Forest Officer be directed to give the petitioner immediate possession and not to interfere with her rights. Then	 as nothing tangible happened	 she made a petition to this Court under article 32 of the Constitution on August 26	 1957. The foundation of the petitioner 's rights is the deed of April 26	 1948. The exact nature of this document was much canvassed before us in the arguments by both sides. It was said at various times by one side or the other to be a contract conferring contractual rights	 a transfer	 a licence coupled with a grant	 that it related to move able property and that	 contra	 it related to immoveable property. It will be necessary	 therefore	 to ascertain its true nature before I proceed further. As I have said	 the document calls itself a " lease deed "	 but that is not conclusive because the true nature of a document cannot be disguised by labelling it something else. 272 Clause (1) of the deed runs " We executed this lease deed . and which by this deed have been leased out to you in consideration of Rs. 26	000 for taking out timber	 fuel and bamboos etc. " At the end of clause (2)	 there is the following paragraph: " You No. 1 are the principal lessee	 while Nos. 2 and 3 are the sub lessees. " Clause (3) contains a reservation in favour of the proprietor. A certain portion of the cutting was reserved for the proprietor and the petitioner was only given rights in the remainder. The relevant passage runs: " Pasas 16	 17	 18 are already leased out to you in your lease. The cutting of its wood be made by the estate itself. Thereafter	 whatever stock shall remain standing	 it shall be part of your lease. Of this stock	 so cut	 you shall have no claim whatsoever. " Clause (5) runs " Besides the above pasas the whole forest is leased out to you. Only the lease	 of the forest woods is given to you. " Clause (7) states " The proprietorship of the estate and yourself are (in a way) co related and you are managing the same and therefore in the lease itself and concerning it	 you should conduct yourself only as a lease holder explicitly Only in the absence of the Malik	 you should look after the estate as a Malik and only to that extent you should hold charge as such and conduct yourself as such with respect ' to sub lessees. " The rest of this clause is Without the signatures of the Malik	 nothing	 would be held valid and acceptable	 including even your own pasas transactions	. . . The lease under reference shall not be alterable or alienable by any body. " The only other clause to which reference need be made is clause (8). It runs 273 "You should not be permitted to recut the wood in the area which was once subject to the operation of cutting. otherwise the area concerned will revert to the estate. The cutting of the forests should be right at the land surface and there should not be left any deep furrows or holes. " I will examine the seventh clause first. The question is whether it confers any proprietary rights or interest on the petitioner. I do not think it does. It is clumsily worded but I think that the real meaning is this. The petitioner is the `proprietor 's wife and it seems that she was accustomed to do certain acts of management in his absence. The purpose of clause (7) is to ensure that when she acts in that capacity she is not to have the right to make any alteration in the deed. There are no words of transfer or conveyance and I do not think any part of the proprietary rights	 or any interest in them	 are conveyed by this clause. It does not even confer rights of management. It only recites the existing state of affairs and either curtails or clarifies powers as manager that are assumed to exist when the proprietor is away. Although the document repeatedly calls itself a lease	 it confers no rights of enjoyment in the land. Clause (5) makes that clear	 because it says Only the lease of the forest woods is given to you ' . In my opinion	 the document only confers a right to enter on the lands in order to cut down certain kinds of trees and carry away the wood. To that extent the matter is covered by the decision in Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (1)	 and by the later decision in Ananda Behera vs The State of Orissa (2)	 where it was held that a transaction of this kind amounts to a licence to enter on the land coupled with a grant to out certain trees on it and carry away the wood. In England it is a profit a prendre because it is a grant of the produce of the soil " like grass	 or turves or trees ". See 12 Halsbury 's Laws of England (Simonds Edition) page 522	 Note (m). (2) [1953]S.C.R.476	483. (2) ; 	 922	 923. 35 274 It is not a " transfer of a right to enjoy the immoveable property " itself (section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act)	 but a grant of a right to enter upon the land and take away a part of the produce of the soil from it. In a lease	 one enjoys the property but has no right to take it away. In a profit a prendre one has a licence to enter on the land	 not for the purpose of enjoying it	 but for removing something from it	 namely	 a part of the produce of the soil. Much of the discussion before us centred round the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates	 Mahals	 Alienated Lands) Act of 1950. But I need not consider that because this	 being a writ petition under article 32	 the petitioner must establish a fundamental right. For the reasons given in Ananda Behera 's case (1)	 I would hold that she has none. This runs counter to Chhotebhai Jethabhai Patel 's case but	 as that was a decision of three Judges and the other five	 I feel that we are bound to follow the later case	 that is to say	 Ananda Behera 's case (1)	 especially as I think it lays down the law aright. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that his client 's rights flowed out of a contract and so	 relying on Chhotebhai Jethabhai Patel 's case(2)	 he contended that he was entitled to a writ. As a matter of fact	 the rights in the earlier case were held to flow from a licence and not from a contract simpliciter (see page 483) but it is true that the learned Judges held that a writ petition lay. In so far as the petitioner rests her claim in contract simpliciter	 I think she has no case because of the reasons given in Ananda Behera 's case (1): " If the petitioners ' rights are no more than the right to obtain future goods under the Sale of Goods Act	 then that is a purely personal right arising out of a contract to which the State of Orissa is not a party and in any event a refusal to perform the contract that gives rise to that right may amount to a breach of contract but cannot be regarded as a breach of any fundamental right. " To bring the claim under article 19(1)(f) or article 31(1) (1) [1955]2 S.C.R. 919. (2) ; 275 something more must be disclosed	 namely	 a right to property of which one is the owner or in which one has an interest apart from a purely contractual right. Therefore	 the claim founded in contract simpliciter disappears. But	 in so far as it is founded either on the licence	 or on the grant	 the question turns on whether this is a grant of moveable or immovable property. Following the decision in Ananda Behera 's case (1)	 I would hold that a right to enter on land for the purpose of cutting and carrying away timber standing on it is a benefit that arises out of land. There is no difference there between the English and the Indian law. The English law will be found in 12 Halsbury 's Laws of England (Simonds Edition) pages 620 and 621. But that still leaves the question whether this is moveable or immoveable property. Under section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act	 it would be regarded as " immovable property " because it is a benefit that arises out of the land and also because trees are attached to the earth. On the other hand	 the Transfer of Property Act says in section 3 that standing timber is not immoveable property for the purposes of that Act and so does section 2 (6) of the Registration Act. The question is which of these two definitions is to prevail. Now it will be observed that " trees " are regarded as immoveable property because they are attached to or rooted in the earth. Section 2(6) of the Registration Act expressly says so and	 though the Transfer of Pro party Act does not define immoveable property beyond saying that it does not include " standing timber	 growing crops or grass "	 trees attached to earth (except standing timber)	 are immovable property	 even under the Transfer of Property Act	 because of section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act. In the absence of a special definition	 the general definition must prevail. Therefore	 trees (except standing timber) are immoveable property. Now	 what is the difference between standing timber and a tree ? It is clear that there must be a distinction because the Transfer of Property Act draws one in the definitions of " immoveable property " and (1) ; 276 " attached to the earth " ; and it seems to me that the distinction must lie in the difference between a tree and timber. It is to be noted that the exclusion is only of standing timber " and not of " timber trees". Timber is well enough known to be " wood suitable for building houses	 bridges	 ships etc.	 whether on the tree or cut and seasoned. (Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary). Therefore	 " standing timber " must be a tree that is in a state fit for these purposes and	 further	 a tree that is meant to be converted into timber so shortly that it can already be looked upon as timber for all practical purposes even though it is still standing. I? not	 it is still a tree because	 unlike timber	 it will continue to draw sustenance from the soil. Now	 of course	 a tree will continue to draw sustenance from the soil so long as it continues to stand and live; and that physical fact of life cannot be altered by giving it another name and calling it " standing timber ". But the amount of nourishment it takes	 if it is felled at a reasonably early date	 is so negligible that it can be ignored for all practical purposes and though	 theoretically	 there is no distinction between one class of tree and another	 if the drawing of nourishment from the soil is the basis of the rule	 as I hold it to be	 the law is grounded	 not so much on logical abstractions as on sound and practical common sense. It grew empirically from instance to instance and decision to decision until a recognisable and workable pattern emerged; and here	 this is the shape it has taken. The distinction	 set out above	 has been made in a series of Indian cases that are collected in Mulla 's Transfer of Property Act	 4th edition	 at pages 16 and 21. At page 16	 the learned author says "Standing timber are trees fit for use for building or repairing houses. This is an exception to the general rule that growing trees are immoveable property." At page 21 he says "Trees and shrubs may be sold apart from the land	 to be cut and removed as wood	 and in that case they are moveable property. But if the transfer 277 includes the right to fell the trees for a term of years	 so that the transferee derives a benefit from further growth	 the transfer is treated as one of immoveable ' property." The learned author also refers to the English law and says at page 21 " In English law an unconditional sale of growing trees to be cut by the purchaser	 has been held to be a sale of an interest in land; but not so if it is stipulated that they are to be removed as soon as possible. " In my opinion	 the distinction is sound. Before a tree can be regarded as " standing timber " it must be in such a state that	 if cut	 it could be used as timber; and when in that state it must be cut reasonably early. The rule is probably grounded on generations of experience in forestry and commerce and this part of the law may have grown out of that. It is easy to see that the tree might otherwise deteriorate and that its continuance in a forest after it has passed its prime might hamper the growth of younger wood and spoil the forest and eventually the timber market. But however that may be	 the legal basis for the rule is that trees that are not cut continue to draw nourishment from the soil and that the benefit of this goes to the grantee. Now	 how does the document in question regard this In the first place	 the duration of the grant is twelve years. It is evident that trees that will be fit for cutting twelve years hence will not be fit for felling now. Therefore	 it is not a mere sale of the trees as wood. It is more. It is not just a right to cut a tree but also to derive a profit from the soil itself	 in the shape of the nourishment in the soil that goes into the tree and maker	 it grow till it is of a size and age fit for felling as timber; and	 if already of that size	 in order to enable it to continue to live till the petitioner chooses to fell it. This aspect is emphasised in clause (5) of the deed where the cutting of teak trees under 1/2 feet is prohibited. But	 as soon as they reach that girth within the twelve years	 they can be felled. And clause (4) speaks of a first cutting and a second cutting and a 278 third cutting. As regards trees that could be cut at once	 there is no obligation to do so. They can be left standing till such time as the petitioner chooses to fell them. That means that they are not to be converted into timber at a reasonably early date and that the intention is that they should continue to live and derive nourishment and benefit from the soil; in other words	 they are to be regarded as trees and not as timber that is standing and is about to be cut and used for the purposes for which timber is meant. It follows that the grant is not only of standing timber but also of trees that are not in a fit state to be felled at once but which are to be felled gradually as they attain the required girth in the course of the twelve years;. and further	 of trees that the petitioner is not required to fell and convert into timber at once even though they are of the required age and growth. Such trees cannot be regarded as timber that happens to be standing because timber	 as such	 does not draw nourishment from the soil. If	 therefore	 they can be left for an appreciable length of time	 they must be regarded as trees and not as timber. The difference lies there. The result is that	 though such trees as can be regarded as standing timber at the date of the document	 both because of their size and girth and also because of the intention to fell at an early date	 would be moveable	 property for the purposes of the Transfer of Property and Registration Acts	 the remaining trees that are also covered by the grant will be immoveable property	 and as the total value is Rs. 26	000	 the deed requires registration. Being unregistered	 it passes no title or interest and	 therefore	 as in Ananda Behera 's case (1) the petitioner has no fundamental right which she can enforce. My lord the Chief Justice and my learned brothers prefer to leave the question whether the deed here is a lease or a licence coupled with a grant	 open because	 on either view the petitioner must fail. But we are all agreed that the petition be dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.

By an unregistered document the husband of the petitioner granted her the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood from certain forests in his Zamindary. With the passing of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates	 Mahals	 Alienated Lands) Act	 1950	 all proprietary rights in land vested in the State under section 3 Of that Act and the petitioner could no longer cut any wood. She applied to the Deputy Commissioner and obtained from him an order under section 6(2) of the Act permitting her to work the forest and started cutting the trees. The Divisional Forest Officer took action against her and passed an order directing that her name might be cancelled and the cut materials forfeited. She moved the State Government against this order but to no effect. Thereafter she applied to this Court under article 32 of the Constitution and contended that the order of Forest Officer infringed her fundamental rights under articles 19(i)(f) and 19(1)(g) : Held (per curiam)	 that the order in question did not infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioner under articles 19(1)(f) and 19(i)(g) and the petition must be dismissed. 34 266 Ananda Behera vs The State of Orissa	 [1955] 2 S.C.R. gig	 followed. Chhotabai jethabai Patel and Co. vs The State of Madhya Pradesh	 ; 	 not followed. Held (per Das C. J.	 Venkatarama Aiyar	 section K. Das and A. K. Sarkar	 jj.)	 that it was not necessary to examine the docu ment minutely and finally determine its real character for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy	 for whatever construction might be put on it	 the petition must fail. If the document purported to transfer any proprietary interest in land	 it would be ineffective both for non registration under the Registration Act and under section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act which vested such interest in the State. If it was a profits a prendre that was sought to be transferred by it	 then again the document would be compulsorily registrable as a profits a prendre was by its nature immoveable property. If it was a contract that gave rise to a purely personal right	 assum ing that a contract was property within the meaning of article 19(i)(f) and 31(1) Of the Constitution	 the petitioner could not complain as the State had not acquired or taken possession of the contract which remained her property and she was free to dispose of it in any way she liked. The State not being a party to that contract would not be bound by it	 and even if for some reason or other it could be	 the remedy of the petitioner lay by way of a suit for enforcement of the contract and compensation for any possible breach of it and no question of infringement of any fundamental right could arise. Per Bose	 J. The document conferred a right on the peti tioner to enter on the lands in order to cut down and carry away	 not merely the standing timber	 but also other trees that were not in a fit state to be felled at once. The grant was	 therefore	 not merely in respect of moveable property but immoveable property as well. Being valued at Rs. 26	ooo	 the document was compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act otherwise no title or interest could pass ; and in absence of such registration the petitioner had no fundamental rights that could be enforced	 as held by this court in Ananda Behera 's case. Although standing timber is not immoveable property under the Transfer of Property Actor the Registration Act	 trees attacked to the earth which are immoveable property under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act	 as also section 2(6) of the Registration Act	 must be so under the Transfer of Property Act as well.