http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: THE MEMBER FOR THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, ASSAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT.  SINDHURANI CHAUDHURANI.(with connected appeals)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/1957

BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BENCH: KAPUR, J.L. BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA

CITATION:  1957 AIR  729            1957 SCR 1019

ACT: Salami--Indicia-If capital receipt-Liability to agricultural income-tax-Assam  Agricultural Income-tax Act (Assam  IX  of 1939), s. 2(a) (1).

HEADNOTE: The true indicia of salami are (1) its single  non-recurring character  and  (2)  payment prior to the  creation  of  the tenancy.   It  is the consideration paid by the  tenant  for being  let  into  possession and can  be  neither  rent  nor revenue  but  is  a  capital receipt in  the  hands  of  the landlord. Kamakshya  Narain  Singh v. The Commissioner of  Income  Tax (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 180, relied on. Case-law reviewed. Birendra  Kishore Manikya v. Secretary of State  for  India, (1920) I.L.R. 48 Cal. 766, Meher Bano Khanum v. Secretary of State  for  India, (1925) I.L.R. 53 Cal. 34,  Raja  Rajendra Narayan  Bhanja  Deo v. Commissioner of Income  Tax,  (1929) I.L.R.  9  Pat. 1 and Commissioner of Income Tax  v.  K.  C. Manavikramato Rajah, I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 837, distinguished. Consequently,  where  payments  described  as  salamis   and received by certain zamindar assessees as consideration  for granting  agricultural leases, by no means of  a  precarious nature, were (1) [1946] 1 All E.R. 546.  (2) [1947] 1 All E.R. 608. 1020 all  made prior to such grants and were of  a  non-recurring character,  but calculated at rates varying with the  nature of the lands and chargeable on every subsequent eviction and re-letting, they were properly so described and were neither rent  nor  revenue within the  definition  of  ’agricultural income’  contained in s. 2(a) (1) of the Assam  Agricultural Income-Tax  Act and could not be assessed to tax  under  the Act.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals  Nos.  162  of 1955, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of 1956.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 5, 1953, of the  Calcutta  High  Court (Original  Side)  in  Income  Tax Reference  Appeal  No.  12  of 1942  and  appeals  from  the judgment  and  order dated July 2, 1952, of the  Assam  High Court at Gauhati in Agricultural Income Tax References  Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 6 and 8 of 1949 respectively. Veda  Vyasa and Naunit Lal, for the appellants in  C.A.  No. 162  of  1955 and respondents in C. As.  Nos. 38  to  44  of 1956. B.  Baksi,  S.  N.  Mukerjea  and  R.  B.  Biswas,  for  the respondents  in C. A. No. 162 of 1955 and appellants  in  C. As. Nos. 38 to 41, 43 and 44 of 1956. Appellant  in  C. A. No. 42 of 1956 not  represented.  1957. 1957 April 24.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR  J.-In all these appeals the question for decision  is the character and purport of the payment termed ’Salami’ and whether it falls within the meaning of " agricultural income " as defined in the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act  (Ass. IX of 1939) hereinafter called the " Act ".   C. A. No. 162 of 1955 is directed against the judgment  of the Calcutta High Court dated January 15, 1953.  C. A.  Nos. 38  to 44 of 1956 have been brought against the judgment  of Assam High.  Court dated April 2, 1952.  These matters  were all heard together in the Assam High Court and were disposed of by one judgment  C.  A. No. 162 of 1955 relates to the assessment year 1941- 42.  The assessee in that case was a -/8/9 annas        1021 co-sharer in a zamindari estate known as " Parbatjoar estate "  in  Assam.  The original assessee was  Jyotindra  Narayan Chowdhury who died on January 25, 1953, and on his death his widow,  Shrimati  Sindhurani  Chowdhurani  and  others  were substituted.   The  gross  in, agricultural  income  of  the assessee  was  Rs.  89,633 and income from  salami  was  Rs. 9,331-9-4   which  was  received  from  settlement  of   414 different holdings out of which 278 were holdings of  virgin lands  and 136 were those of what are described as  auction- purchase lands.  Out of the gross income from salami 15  per cent. has been allowed as collection charges and the  amount in  dispute  in  this appeal therefore is  Rs.  7,934.   The Agricultural  Income  Tax  Officer  held  this  sum  to   be "agricultural income " by his order dated November 10, 1941, which  was affirmed on appeal to the Assistant  Commissioner of  Agricultural  Income  Tax.  The revision  taken  to  the Commissioner under s. 27 of the Act was dismissed but at the instance  of the assessee the following two  questions  were referred for the opinion of the High Court. (1)Whether  the single non-recurring premia or salamis  paid to the landlord assessee once only as consideration for  the settlement  of agricultural land at the time of  granting  a lease can be held to be income within the meaning of the Act ? (2)Whether  single non-recurring premia or salamis  paid  to the landlord assessee as consideration for the settlement of agricultural  land once only at the time of  granting  lease when such premia or salamis are not dependent on the rate of rent charged, can be held to be income within the meaning of the Act ? The  Calcutta  High Court by its judgment  dated  April  12, 1945,  held  these receipts to be  "  agricultural  income." Against  this  judgment  an appeal was taken  to  the  Privy Council  but  on the abolition of the  jurisdiction  of  the Privy  Council  the appeal was transferred  to  the  Federal Court  and was heard by that court as C. A. No. 30 of  1949. That  court  set aside the judgment of the  High  Court  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

remitted the case to the High Court " to be dealt with again after ascertaining and considering the following  additional factors likely 1022 to  show the true nature of the receipts described  as    It salami in the present case. "  1. The number of settlement of waste lands and  abandoned holdings during the accounting year and, the maximum and the minimum extents settled and salami received. 2.   Does the salami vary with the quality of the land,  the facilities for irrigation and such other favourable  factors ? 3.   How many tenants ejected under section 69 during  the accounting  year  and how long they had been  in  occupation before such eviction? 4.   Is salami received when lands are relet after eviction? 5.   Is salami that is paid in the zamindary of the assessee in  the  nature of a I present’ given by the tenant  to  the landlord for the permission to occupy the land or whether it is in substance a premium payable by lessee at the inception of the tenancy? After the remand the case was again stated by the Member  of Assam  Board  of Agricultural Income Tax, Dr.  Goswami,  and answers to these questions were : 1.   Total  number of settlements were 414,  maximum  extent being  59  bighas  2 Cottahs and 10 Dhurs,  and  salami  Rs. 161-8-61  and  minimum  extent was  15  Cottahs  and  salami received therefrom Rs. 2-11-9. 2.   Rate  of salami varies with the quality of  the  lands, two  fixed rates being Rs. 7 per bigha for jungle lands  and Rs. 10 per bigha for non-jungle lands. 3.   There  was no eviction of tenants under section  69  of the  Goalpara Tenancy Act, but action was taken in  a  large number of cases under section 68 of that Act. 4.   Salami is realized when lands are relet after eviction. 5.   Salami  is  not in the nature of a present.   It  is  a compulsory  payment  by the tenant to the  landlord  at  the inception of the tenancy. In  the  Statement  of  the Case the  Board  said  that  the zamindar’s business or vocation was letting out holdings                             1023 against  payment.  The area of land held by him was a  large one  "which  he  lets out piecemeal to  various  tenants  on conditions among others that the would be tenant will  first pay a fee which he prefers to call salami’ and that he  will pay an annual rent.  " It held that this payment was not  "a windfall",  that  the " isalami’ arose from  the  landlord’s business  of  letting out his lands, and............  is  an income",  that because of the " regularity or periodicity  " attached  to the receipt of salami, " it satisfies the  test of I income ’ " and therefore the amounts received as salami were agricultural income " within s. 2(a)(1) of the Act. On  a consideration of the facts found by the Board in  this case  and after reference to the reported judgments  of  the various  courts,  the  Calcutta High  Court  held  that  the amounts  received  by  the assessee as  salami  were  not  " agricultural income " and the Board has brought this  appeal (C.A. No. 162 of 1955) against that judgment. In  the  Assam Appeals also the areas of land  held  by  the assessees  were  large  and total income in the  case  of  " Parbatjoar  estate  " was Rs. 1,15,510 and in  the  case  of Mechpara  estate  it was Rs. 2,82,106  which  was  divisible amongst the various co-sharers.  Salami rates in  Parbatjoar estate varied from Rs. 7 per.bigha for forest land to Rs. 10 per bigha for other lands depending upon the quality of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

land.  In Mechpara estate the rates in hilly tracts were Re. 1 to Rs. 2 for good sail land and Re.  1 to Rs. 6 for  other class  of land and in the plains they varied from Rs.  2  to Rs.  3  for good sail land, and Re.  1 to Rs.  6  for  other lands  and As. 8 to Re.  1 for newly formed Char lands.   In Bijni  Raj  estate the minimum salami was Re.  1  per  bigha irrespective  of the area of the land.  In  Gauripur  estate the  holdings  were  settled by auction and  the  amount  of salami  was  determined by the demand,  depending  upon  the quality  of land and facilities for  irrigation.   Similarly ;in  the  Chapter  Trust estate  holdings  were  settled  by auction.  The finding of the High Court was: "  It is abundantly clear from the above statement of  facts that the rates of salami vary with the quality 1024  land  in each estate.  They have no relation to rent  which is  admittedly  fixed  and  invariable. Lands  are  settled generally in small plots.   The  highest figure  received  as salami in a single transaction  in  the years with which we are concerned was in Parbatjoar.  A  sum of Rs. 621 was received on a settlement of an area measuring 88 B., 14 K., 15 D. In Mechpara an area measuring 165 B., 16 K.,  12 D., was settled for Rs. 318.  The minimum extent  of area settled in one transaction was also in Mechpara.  Lands measuring only 2 K. was settled.  Salami received was Rs. 3- 5-0.  Between these two extremes the extent of areas settled varies.  " There were no evictions under s. 69 of the Assam Tenancy Act of  non-occupancy tenants but ejectments did take place  and action  was  taken under s. 68 of the Act.   After  the  re- statement of the case on the lines suggested by the  Federal Court, the Assam High Court held that " salami " is not rent but   revenue   derived   from   land   and   is   therefore income.............. The question for decision is whether the amounts received as salami  are  rent  or revenue within  the  definition  of  " agricultural  income " and therefore liable to  agricultural income tax. The basis of the first Calcutta judgment dated May 12, 1945, in  C.A. No. 162 of 1955 was that salamis were a normal  and regular feature of these estates and there was  periodicity. When  the matter came up in appeal to the Federal Court  the learned  Chief Justice was of the opinion that  the  receipt termed  salami  if nothing more is stated in respect  of  it cannot be treated as a capital receipt and therefore  exempt from  taxation  nor could it merely as such  be  treated  as income  and therefore assessable to income-tax.  Mahajan  J. (as  he  then  was)  said: " It may  be  a  recurring  or  a periodical payment if it is a fee or a fine levied  annually on  the holder of rent-free tenures as a quit rent;  on  the other  hand,  it  may  not be  a  periodical  payment  or  a recurring  payment  if  it is in the  form  of  gratuity  or offering on receiving a lease or settling for the revenue or on  receiving  any favour real or implied." He  was  of  the opinion that in the former case it would be agricultural 102 income  but in the latter case it would be a capita  receipt being the price for that small " modicum of ownership  which the  landlord transfers to the tenant.’  In the Assam cases Ram Labhaya J. said that by settling the lands and accepting salami the landlord parts with the right of immediate occupation. The  characteristics and incidence of salami disclosed  from the  " statements of the cases " are that it is a  lump  sum non-recurring  receipt of money by a landlord from a  tenant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

before making a settlement of the holding which in C.A.  No. 162  of 1955 varied from Rs. 7 to Rs. 10 per bigha  and  was less in other cases.  He is also entitled to charge a  fixed periodical  amount of 11 annas per bigha per annum.   Salami is charged when. ever a fresh settlement is made whether  it is  of  a  piece of virgin land or  of  an  auction-purchase holding.   Thus  salami  is a payment by  a  tenant  to  the landlord antecedent to the constitution of the  relationship of  landlord  and  tenant.  It is really a  payment  by  the tenant to the landlord for being allowed to take  possession of  the land for cultivation under the lease.  In all  those cases under appeal the leases were oral and the duration and conditions  thereof  were  regulated by  Statute  The  Assam Tenancy  Act.   Salami  is not  a  recurring  or  periodical payment or a fee or fine levied at fixed intervals from  the tenant for the same holding.  In these cases it has not been contended or even suggested nor was it contended before  the Federal Court that salami is capitalised rent.  As a  matter of  fact the Federal Court found that it was not rent.   In’ consideration of the payment of salami an estate in land  is transferred  by  the  landlord to the  tenant  although  the estate  taken by the tenant in the first instance is a  non- occupancy  tenancy which grows into an occupancy tenancy  by the  efflux of time.  But in no case in any of  the  appeals was action taken under s. 69 of the Assam Tenancy Act  which regulates  the  rights  and  liabilities  of   non-occupancy tenants  and  no tenant was ejected from  his  non-occupancy tenancy.  On the other hand whenever action had to be  taken for non-payment of rent and ejectment it was taken 132 1026 under s. 68 of the Goalpara Tenancy Act.  This section s  as follows: A  permanent tenure-holder, a raiyat at fixed rates,  or  an occupancy  tenant,  shall  not be liable  to  ejectment  for arrears  of rent, but his tenure or holding shall be  liable to  sale in execution of a decree for the rent thereof,  and the  rent shall be a first charge thereon. In  execution  of decrees  for  arrears of rent the estates of  the  occupancy tenants  were  sold, the purchaser in all  cases  being  the landlord himself and thus for recovering the arrears of rent the  landlord  had  to bring to sale the  right,  title  and interest  of his tenant and after purchase of this right  he relet the land, on receiving the salami from the new tenant. This  process  again shows that the landlord did  part  with some   interest  in  land,  which  cannot  be  said  to   be precarious,  when he made the settlement of land on  receipt of  salami, which was a single nonrecurring payment  by  the lessee for the acquisition of his rights under the lease.  " Agricultural  income"  which,  it is claimed  by  the  Board comprises salami, has been defined in s. 2(a)(i) of the Act. The relevant portion of this section is: S.2(a)(i).   Any rent or revenue derived from land which  is used  for agricultural purposes, and is either  assessed  to land  revenue in Assam or subject to a local  rate  assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such. Salami  is not rent and, therefore, unless it is revenue  it will not fall within this definition. "   Income"   was  described  by  Sir  George   Lowndes   in Commissioner  of Income Tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co. (1) as  "a periodical  monetary  return  coming in with  some  sort  of regularity, or expected regularity, from definite  sources." In  Captain  Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narain Singh  v.  The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa (2), Lord Russell of  Killowen after referring to the definition given by  Sir

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

George Lowndes held that life annuity paid out of an  estate is income. (1) (1932) L.R. 59 I.A. 2o6, 212. (2) (1935) L.R. 62 I.A. 207. 1027 Salami  was  described by Lord Wright  in  Kamakshya  Narain Singh  v.  The COMMissioner of Income Tax (1), a case  of  a grant  of a mining lease for a period of 999 years,  in  the following words: " The salami has been, rightly, in their  Lordships’opinion, treated  as a capital receipt.  It is a single payment  made for  the  acquisition of the right of lessees to  enjoy  the benefits  granted to them by the lease.  That general  right may  properly be regarded as a capital asset, and the  money paid to purchase it may properly be held to be a payment  on capital account." The importance lies in the use of the words "the money  paid to purchase it ", i.e., the right of the lessee to enjoy the benefits granted under the lease. In  Raja  Shiv Prasad Singh v. The Crown(2) where  also  the lease  was a mining lease for a period of 999 years,  salami was described as a sum which is payable at the inception  of the  lease and as a nonrecurring payment in the nature of  a premium for granting a lease. In  Commissioner  of  Income  Tax  v.  Maharajadhiraj  Kumar Visheshwar Singh (3) an area measuring 41 bighas of land was settled  for an indefinite (bemead) period on a yearly  rent and  in the event of default of two consecutive  instalments the  lessee  could be dispossessed and was  also  liable  to other  penalties.  This land was settled with the lessee  to enable him to build a "  gola house" and a platform for  the rice  mill.   The lease was taken to be in the nature  of  a permanent lease and it was held that salami represented  the price  for  parting  with the land and  was  not  merely  an advance  rent and as it was not a recurring payment, it  did not fall within the definition of the word ’income’ as given in  Commissioner  of Income Tax v. Shaw Wallace &  Co.  (4). Manoharlal  J. who gave a concurrent judgment, at  page  824 described  salami  as the amount of money which  a  landlord "insists  on receiving as a condition precedent for  parting with  the land in favour of the lessee." lie also held  that salami (1)  (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 180, 190. (2)  (1924) I.L.R. 4 Patna 73. (3)  (1939) I.L.R. 18 Patna 805. (4)  (1932) L.R. 59 I.A. 206, 212. 1028 could  not be treated as a revenue receipt and that  it  was received by the landlord "not because of the use of the land but  before the land was put into use by the assessee."  The same court in Province of Bihar v. Maharaja Protap Udai Nath Sahi Deo (1) followed the definition of the word ’salami’ as given in Kumar Visheshwar Singh’s case.  Harries C.J.  there held that where salami cannot be regarded as payment of rent in advance, it will not be income and would, therefore,  not be taxable.  He said "prima facie, salami is not income, and it  is  impossible  upon the facts as  stated  to  say  that salamis  received...............  constitute  part  of   his income." Rankin C.J. in Re Gooptu Estate Limited (2) held payment  of one lakh of rupees as salami not to be income.  In that case it  was  demanded and paid in respect of resettlement  of  a lease  which  had  still to run for 48 years  but  had  been forfeited for the non-payment of rent. In certain cases, however, payment by way of salami has been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

held  to  be  ’agricultural income’.   In  Birendra  Kishore Manikya v. Secretary of State for India (3) it was held that the   consideration  for  the  grant  of  a  lease  is   the capitalised value of the sum periodically payable along with the premium so that "the larger the one element the  smaller the  other."  On  this  basis  the  premium  paid  for   the settlement of waste lands or abandoned holdings was regarded as  rent or revenue’ derived from land and therefore  within the definition of agricultural income in section 2(1)(a)  of the  Indian  Income  Tax Act.  This was  a  case  which  was decided  under  the Indian Income Tax Act and  the  question whether  it  was a capital receipt or  revenue  receipt  and therefore exempt or not from taxation did not arise  because the  Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act was passed  in  1944 and  the  Assam Act in 1939.  It was not necessary  for  the purpose  of  that case to decide whether it  was  a  capital receipt  or  revenue  because what was  to  be  decided  was whether salami was (1)  (1947) I.L.R. 20 Patna 699, 722. (2)  (1929) 50 C.L.J. 375. (3) (1920) I.L.R. 48 Cal, 766. 1029 exempt from income-tax under s. 2(a)(i) of the Indian Income Tax  Act.  As a matter of fact the assessee argued  in  that case  that  these sums constituted "  agricultural  income". Moreover  the dictum the smaller the salami the  higher  the rent  and  vice-versa  did not  receive  acceptance  by  the Federal  Court  when the present matter was  heard  in  that court before remand (C.A. No. 30 of 1949). In  Meher  Bano Khanum v. Secretary of  State  for  India(1) ’salami’  was  defined  to  be an  amount  received  by  the landlord  for  the  recognition of the transfer  of  a  non- transferable holding which was paid to the landlord  because of   his  ownership  of  the  land.   It  was  held  to   be "agricultural income" as it was "rent or revenue" within the meaning  of  that  expression.   The  Standing  Counsel  who appeared  for the Secretary of State in that  case  conceded that it was not revenue but his argument was that it was not revenue derived from land but that it was an incident of the transfer and not of tenancy and therefore did not flow  from the  land.  In neither of these cases was it argued  whether salami was a revenue receipt or capital receipt. In  a  Full Bench of the Patna High Court in  Raja  Rajendra Narayan  Bhanja  Deo  v. Commissioner of  Income  Tax  (2  ) mutation  fees were held to be agricultural income but  that was a case of payment after the relationship of landlord and tenant   had   come  into  existence.   Similarly   in   the Commissioner  of Income Tax v. K. C. Manavikraman Rajah  (3) monies  paid  for  the renewal of leases  were  held  to  be agricultural income within the meaning of s. 2(1)(a) of  the Indian Income Tax Act.  Here again the monies were paid  not for  the  constitution of the relationship of  landlord  and tenant  but after that relationship had come into  existence and for its continuance. In H. H. Maharaja Sir Bir Bikram Kishore Manikya Bahadur  v. The  Province  of Assam (1), a case under the  Act,  Harries C.J. referred to Kamakshya Narain Singh’s case (5) and  held that it had to be decided on (1)(1925) I.L.R. 53 Cal. 34. (2)  (1929) I.L.R. 9 Patna 1. (3)  I.L.R. 1945 Mad. 837. (4)  (1948) 53 C.W.N. 164. (5)  (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 18o, 190. 1030 the  facts  of  each case whether  salami  was  agricultural

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

income  or not because it was not known in respect  of  what transaction the amount was received. The Orissa High Court in S. M. Bose v. Secretary, ’Board  of Revenue (1) has held that salami is not a payment of rent in advance nor is it income but is a payment by way of  capital receipt.  It was contended before us that the Privy  Council in Kamakshya Narain Singh’s case (2 ) based its decision  on the  wasting nature of the assets under the lease.  But  the definition given by Lord Wright is in general terms and just describes  what the characteristics of a payment by  way  of salami are without any reference as to the nature of  assets under a lease. In  all  these  appeals  before  us  the  assessees  derived considerably  large  amounts  of  income  from  agricultural holdings.   It  is not shown as to what the  number  of  the holdings  were but they must have been  considerably  large. On   the   other  hand  the  number   of   settlements   was comparatively   small  a  few  hundreds  and  consisted   of settlements  of virgin lands as well as of  auction-purchase lands and were not derived from the same holdings at regular intervals.   This  and  the findings  of  fact  given  above negative  the finding as to "regularity and periodicity"  of payment of salami and also that it "arose out of business of letting  out his land." The payments by way of  salami  were made by the prospective lessees anterior to the constitution of the relationship of landlord and tenant as the price  for the  lessor  agreeing  to the parting of his  rights  in  an agricultural holding in favour of the proposed lessee. In  Principles  of Mohamadan Law by Macnaughton  ,salami  is defined  as; "a free gift by way of compliment or in return of a favour." In Wilson’s Glossary the meaning given to it is: " a complimentary present, a douceur............ ; a present to  a superior upon being introduced to him; a  gratuity  or offering on receiving a lease........... (1) A.I.R. 1955 Orissa 288. (2) (1943) L.R. 7o I.A. 180, 190. 1031 In the Arabic-English Dictionary by Johnson it means: "  a  present  on being introduced to  a  superior;  earnest money;  a  free gift from a farmer to Government  on  taking lands..........." In Vol.  I of Baden Powell’s "Land Systems of British India" it is stated at page 543; ".......the  Zamindar,  to  raise money, had  sold  so  many taluqs or under farms for ’salami’ or fees paid down Thus all these definitions show that salami is a payment  by the  tenant  as  a present or as price for  parting  by  the landlord  with his rights under the lease of a holding.   It is a lump sum payment as consideration for what the landlord transfers to the tenant. The manner in which the leases were dealt with and the  fact that ’in no case was a non-occupancy tenant evicted and  his tenure was allowed to mature into an occupancy holding shows that  the leases were in practice not so precarious  as  was suggested by the Board, but had an element of stability  and permanency attached to them.  Therefore, when a tenant  paid salami he did so in order to get in return an estate in  the land  owned  by the zamindar.  Salami is thus not  rent  and both  parties have proceeded on that basis and it could  not be called revenue within the meaning of the word used in the definition  of agricultural income under s. 2(1)(a)  of  the Act  because it was a payment to the landlord by the  tenant as a consideration for the transfer of a right in  zamindari lands  owned  by  the landlord.  It has  therefore  all  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

characteristics of a capital payment and is not revenue. In the result appeal No. 162 of 1955 brought by the State of Assam  is  dismissed with costs throughout and  the  appeals brought  by the assessees in C.A. Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956  are allowed,  the judgment of the High Court set aside  and  the referred questions answered in the negative.  The  assessees will  have  their  costs in this court in one  set  and  the courts  below  except  in appeal No. 42 of  1956  where  the appellant was not present, 1032 but it appears that she could not be served and given notice of  the hearing of the appeal and, therefore,  although  her appeal is allowed, as it is based on a point common to other appeals,  the  parties will bear their  own  costs  in  that appeal. Appeal  No. 162 of 1955 dismissed.  Appeals Nos. 38 to 44 of 1956 allowed.