What did the Court decide about trees and standing timber?

Trees attached to the earth are immovable property. However, when trees are meant to be cut as timber, they are treated as standing timber for practical purposes.

How is a lease different from a profit à prendre?

A lease lets a person enjoy the property but not remove it. A profit à prendre allows entry onto land only to take something specific, like wood or minerals.

Why was registration important in this case?

The document needed registration under property law. Because it was unregistered, it did not create any legal interest in the land or in the trees.

Could the petitioner claim a fundamental right under Article 32?

No. Without a valid, registered interest, there was no enforceable right against the State; hence, Article 32 relief was not available.

Shantabai v. State of Bombay

Supreme Court of India 1958 • AIR 1958 SC 532 Bench: SC Property Law ~6–8 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 01 Nov 2025 • Slug: shantabai-v-state-of-bombay

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court held that trees attached to the earth are immovable property. But when those trees are meant to be cut as timber, they are treated as standing timber for practical purposes. The document in question was not a lease; it was a profit à prendre (a right to enter land and take something from it). Because the document was unregistered, it did not transfer any legal interest. Therefore, the petitioner could not claim a fundamental right against the State. Petition dismissed.

CASE_TITLE: Shantabai v. State of Bombay PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: immovable property, standing timber, profit à prendre SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: AIR 1958 SC 532, lease vs license, Article 32 PUBLISH_DATE: 01 Nov 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

```

Issues

Are trees immovable property? How do they differ from standing timber?
Is the document a lease or a profit à prendre?

Rules

Trees attached to the earth are immovable property; exceptions: standing timber, crops, grass.
Lease: possession and enjoyment of property; no right to remove it.
Profit à prendre: right to enter land only to take something away (e.g., wood).
Such rights typically require registration to transfer interest.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Shantabai v. State of Bombay

26 Apr 1948

Petitioner received an unregistered document (titled “lease”) up to 26 Apr 1960 for ₹26,000.

Right to enter certain zamindari areas to cut and carry bamboos, fuelwood, and teak; trees below 1.5 ft girth not to be cut until they grow.

31 Mar 1951

Under the MP Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, proprietary rights vested in the State.

Petitioner was stopped from cutting trees.

Post-1951

Deputy Commissioner briefly permitted work; Divisional Forest Officer objected, canceled name, and ordered forfeiture of cut materials.

Article 32

Petitioner approached the Supreme Court claiming infringement of fundamental rights.

Arguments

Appellant (Petitioner)

Had a valid right to cut and take wood under the document.
State action blocked enjoyment of her rights; fundamental rights violated.

Respondent (State)

Document was not a lease but a profit à prendre requiring registration.
Unregistered instrument created no transferable interest; no enforceable right against State.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the document was a license coupled with a grant—a profit à prendre—and not a lease. Because the document was unregistered, it did not transfer any legal title or interest. Without such interest, the petitioner could not claim a fundamental right against the State. The petition was dismissed without costs.

Ratio

Trees rooted in the earth are immovable property; trees intended to be cut are treated as standing timber.
A right to enter land and remove forest produce is a profit à prendre, not a lease.
Such a right requires registration to be enforceable as an interest in property.

Why It Matters

The case draws a clear line between enjoying property (lease) and taking something from it (profit à prendre). It also reminds us that registration is essential when property interests are created, even if the parties label a document as a “lease.”

Key Takeaways

Label of the document does not decide its nature; the substance does.
Profit à prendre ≠ lease; it is a right to take, not to possess.
Registration is mandatory to transfer proprietary interests.
Trees are immovable; but intended-to-be-cut trees are treated as standing timber.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: TREE → TIMBER → TITLE

Tree: Trees are immovable property.
Timber: If meant to be cut, treat as standing timber.
Title: Profit à prendre needs registration to pass title/interest.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is the instrument a lease or a profit à prendre, and how are trees classified for property purposes?

Rule

Trees = immovable property; intended-to-be-cut trees = standing timber; profit à prendre requires registration to create an interest.

Application

The terms showed a right to enter and remove wood, not possession. Thus, it was a profit à prendre requiring registration, which was absent.

Conclusion

No valid transfer of interest; no enforceable fundamental right; petition dismissed.

Glossary

Standing Timber: Trees intended to be cut soon for timber; treated differently from trees meant to remain.
Profit à Prendre: A right to enter someone’s land and remove something from it (e.g., wood, minerals, fish).
Registration: Formal recording of a document to make a property interest legally effective.