Devarasetti Narasimham and Another vs Devarasetti Venkiah and Another

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.—The only question for determination is whether standing crops are to be treated as moveable or Immovable

property for the purposes of the Indian Limitation Act.

It is argued for the petitioners that Section 2, Clause 13, of the CPC defines moveable property as including standing crops and that a suit for

recovery of the value of standing crops wrongfully cat and carried away is a suit for the recovery of compensation in respect of moveable property

governed by Article 29 of the second Schedule to the Limitation Act.

I do not think that the definition in the CPC can govern the provisions of the Limitation Act. There is no definition of moveable property in the

Limitation Act and reference must be had to the General Clauses Act, X of 1897, which enacts that the definitions given in the Act shall govern all

enactments passed subsequent thereto. Immovable property is defined by Clause 25 of Section 3 as including things attached to the earth or

permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. This will clearly include standing crops. Pandah Gazi v. Jennuddi 4 C.P 665 : 2 C.L.R.

526; Sadu v. Sambhu 6 B.P 592.

Though standing crops were included in the term moveable property'' for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Code, a similar chants which was

proposed when the Limitation Act was drafted in 1908 was for some reason or other given up.

If standing crops are Immovable property, the case is governed by the Full Bench decision in Katagiri Venkataramanujam v. Patibanda

Basavayya 21 Ind. Cas. 213 : 14 M.L.T. 225 : 25 M.L.J. 447 : 1913 M.W.N. 869.

The decision of the District Munsif is correct and the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.