You can farm on the land, but don’t trouble the coconuts

THE Full Court in 1961 commended a Magistrate on his decision and dismissed an appeal brought by the Appellant who claimed that the respondent trespassed on his premises and picked 500 coconuts from trees in the yard.Accordingly, he claimed $250.00 damages from the tenant who had leased land at Pln. Providence for cattle rearing on the grounds that the cattle dealer had picked his coconuts.
A magistrate dismissed the action resulting in the Appellant filing an appeal to the Full Court.
According to the facts of the case, Persaud executed an agreement for a lease to Ramdhan of a piece of land “for the sole purpose of cattle rearing and other livestock rearing, and for no other purpose.” The Agreement was to endure for 10 years but was not in the form of a deed. A dispute having arisen as to whether the lessee was entitled to reap coconuts growing on the land, the Magistrate admitted evidence to show that in the discussion between the parties preliminary to the occasion of the agreement, Ramadhan had expressed no interest in the coconuts and that he never picked coconuts during Persaud’s lifetime.
The court held that by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Cap 185, the document had the force and effect of an agreement for a lease only but that unless reserved by the agreement to the lessor the benefit of the coconut trees would pass to the lessee by virtue of s 19 of the Ordinance.
The court also held that evidence had been rightly admitted in order to explain the document and showed that the effect of the agreement was to reserve the enjoyment of the fruits of the land to the lessee.

L. A. Luckhoo, Q. C., represented the appellant and A.O.H. Holder for the respondent.
The respondent was sued in the Magistrate’s Court in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of Mathura Persaud , who in his lifetime , had executed what purports to be a leased in favour of the Appellant in respect of a strip of land situate at Plantation Friendship , East Bank, Demerara. The document was tendered in the Mmagistrate’s Court and marked “A”. In the lower court, the appellant alleged that Mathura Persaud had trespassed on the premises, and had picked 500 coconuts therefrom; accordingly he claimed damages in the sum of $250.00. A defence was filed in which it was alleged that the appellant was not entitled to reap the coconuts, and by way of counterclaim, the sum of $250.00 was asked for as damages in respect of the loss of coconuts picked by the appellant.
Mr. Luckhoo for the appellant submitted that the document tendered in evidence and marked Exhibit “A” is a lease, and as such is governed by the provisions of s. 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance , Cap. 185.
Mr. Holder said that the purported lease is only an agreement for a lease, and such it is not caught by the section. He referred to Boram v. Griffith, {1930} 1 Ch. 493. The duration of the arrangement envisaged by Exhibit “A” is 10 years and having regard to the provisions of s. 6(i) of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, the document has the “force and effect of an agreement for a lease only.” Clearly this section contemplates leases of shorter duration than three years; all the section does is to preserve the legal effect of a lease; it does not take such agreements out of the definition of the term “lease.” We are therefore, of the view that the arrangement is caught by s. 19 of the Ordinance. Section 19 provides as follows:

“ (i) A lease of land shall be deemed to include and shall by virtue of this Ordinance operate to grant with the land all servitudes casements, rights and advantages whatsoever appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land , or any part thereof, or at the time of the lease occupied or enjoyed with or reputed or known as part of the parcel of appurtenant to the land or any part thereof.

(2) This section shall not be construed as giving to any person a better title to any property, right or thing in this section mentioned than the title which the grant gives to him to the land expressed to be granted, or as granting to him any property, right or thing in this section mentioned , further or otherwise than as the same could have been granted to him by the lessor.

(3) This section applies only if and so far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the lease, and has effect subject to the terms of the lease and to the provisions therein contained.”
The point that needed deciding is whether paragraph 2 of the document reserves in the lessor the benefit of the coconut trees. That paragraph is in the following terms:-
“The lessee to take on lease the said piece of land for the sole purpose of cattle rearing and other livestock rearing and for no other purpose.”
After referring to other aspects in the case Justice of Appeal Guya Persaud who delivered the judgment added, in the circumstances, that there was enough before the magistrate on which he could find that the effect of the agreement was to reserve, the enjoyment of the fruits of the land in the man Mathura Persaud.”
That Full Court constituted by Justices Guya Persaud and Akbar Khan, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the magistrate.
The appellant Ramdhan was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.