TMI Blog1922 (3) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garden products as food for man and beast, if the learned Judge intended thereby to limit it to the raising of food products. For to so restrict the word would be to exclude flower, indigo, cottou, jute, flax tobacco and other such cultivation. For the purposes of that particular case, which related to a lease of betel gardens, considering the policy of favouring agriculture, upon finding that they produced a form of food, the connexion between agriculture and the production of food may have seemed important, but such a limitation is not supported by the definition of agriculture in the Oxford Dictionary which is: the science and art of cultivating the soil, tillage, husbandry, farming (in the widest sense) . This dictionary notes that a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture in all cases where the growth of trees is effected by the expenditure of human care and attention in such operations as those of ploughing, sowing, planting, pruning, manuring, watering, protecting, etc. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs. Ramesam, J. 9. In Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan (1901) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 421, it was held that a lease of a land for growing a betel nut garden was for an agricultural purpose. In the course of the judgment it was observed by Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., that the term agriculture was used, in its more general sense as comprehending the raising of vegetables, fruits and other garden products, as food for man and beast. The learned Judge's observations were inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rposes, such as indigo, etc., and all timber trees, and flowering plants. I do not think this is the intention of the Act. The rearing of a casuarina plantation requires some preparation of the ground and subsequent care by watering the plants. The cases in the Estates Lands Act, Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Ayyapareddi (1915) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 738, Seshayya v. Rajah of Pittapur (1916) 3 L.W. 485 turn on the special policy of the Act see Section 6(4) and cannot help us here. In Devaraja Naicken v. Ammani Ammal (1915) 3 L.W. 319, the point was not argued, being conceded by the learned vakil, and with great deference I think that the learned Judges misconstrued the judgment of Shephabd, J., in Murugesa Chetti v. Chinnathambi Goundan (1901) I.L.R. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
