Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court

"The law settled by this Court that when the right is given to a person to catch fish in the tank, it is profit à prendre attached to, or a benefit to arise out of the land. Therefore, it is an instrument for the purpose of stamp duty" Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed that the right to catch and carry away fish from a designated water body for a specified future period constitutes a 'profit à prendre', classifying it as an interest in immovable property.

A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held that such a deed, when granted for a term exceeding one year, is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908, and attracts stamp duty as a lease.

Categorization of fishing rights as immovable property

The dispute originated when the Collector at Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh, directed the appellant to pay a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 15,72,525 on a deed that granted fishing rights in the Sharda Sagar Jalashya. The authorities treated the deed as a lease of immovable property, a position that was subsequently affirmed by the Chief Controlling Authority and the Allahabad High Court.

Legal issues surrounding the instrument's nature

The primary question before the court was whether the deed, although titled a 'licence' for fishing, functioned in law as a lease of immovable property requiring registration. The court was further tasked with determining whether the regulatory restrictions on fishing during breeding seasons, which limited active operations to ten months a year, could be construed as reducing the duration of the license to less than one year for the purpose of the Registration Act.

Court's interpretation of statutory provisions

The bench observed that the right to catch fish in a specific area is a benefit arising out of the land and is legally regarded as an interest in land. Relying on established precedents, the court noted that such a right is a profit à prendre, which, when purchased for a price, constitutes an instrument that must be registered if the value exceeds one hundred rupees or the duration exceeds one year.

Regulatory suspension does not reduce lease term

Addressing the appellant's argument regarding the ten-month operational window, the court clarified that statutory restrictions on fishing during the rainy or breeding season are merely regulatory measures. These prohibitions, backed by the Fisheries Act, 1897 and the U.P. Fisheries (Development and Control) Rules, 1954, do not alter the contractual duration of the license.

Regulatory limitations do not curtail duration

The court underscored that a regulatory suspension of activity during prohibited seasons does not amount to a reduction of the period of the license. The bench emphasized that the document must be read as a whole to determine its true nature, and since the license was granted for a three-year period, it remained subject to the mandate of compulsory registration.

> "Since the duration of the licence which is in fact a lease, is for more than a year, it is compulsory registrable and liable to stamp duty as an instrument of lease"

Distinguishing earlier orders of the court

The appellant had sought parity with the Court’s order in the case of Farookh Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, arguing that similar licenses had been exempted from lease-related stamp duty. The bench distinguished the present matter, noting that in the earlier case, the High Court had failed to advert to the specific terms and conditions of the license.

Categorical findings on the nature of the deed

In the instant case, the Collector and the Chief Controlling Authority had conducted a detailed examination of the deed's terms to reach a finding. The Supreme Court upheld the lower authority's conclusion, noting that the document clearly functioned as an instrument akin to a lease deed, given its commercial value and duration.

Consequently, the court found no merit in the appeal and held that the orders passed by the revenue authorities and the High Court were legally sound. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the fishing rights agreement must be duly engrossed with appropriate stamp duty and registered in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908.

Date of Decision: 15 July 2026