TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the oil engine and pump-set, fixed to the land for working purposes, were immovable property so as to require the procedure applicable to immovable property in the recovery sale.
Analysis: The classification of a chattel attached to the earth depends on the facts of each case and on the nature, mode and extent of annexation together with the object of annexation. Under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a thing is attached to the earth if it is rooted in the earth, imbedded in the earth, or attached to what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that immovable property. A machine that is fixed to the earth only because it must be so fixed in order to be used, and which remains detachable when not in use, does not thereby become part of the land. The engine in question was fixed only for its own working and beneficial enjoyment, not with the intention of making it a permanent part of the soil. The reasoning was consistent with the approach adopted in decisions treating relative permanence and the purpose of attachment as decisive.
Conclusion: The engine and pump-set were movable property and not immovable property; the recovery sale was not invalid on the ground that the procedure for immovable property had not been followed.
TaxTMI 
