High Court sets aside trial court's dismissal of suit on lease agreement registration, deeming machinery movable. Remanded for further trial.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit regarding the compulsory registration of the lease agreement. The court determined that the machinery in question was movable property and not permanently affixed to the building, thus not requiring registration. The case was remanded for further trial on remaining issues, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal, with further costs to be decided later, and both parties were directed to appear in court on September 21, 1964.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Compulsory registration of the lease agreement.
2. Nature of the machinery as immovable or movable property.
3. Validity of the plaintiff's claims based on the unregistered lease agreement.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compulsory Registration of the Lease Agreement:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the lease agreement dated January 2, 1950, required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the grounds that the lease agreement was compulsorily registrable but was not registered. The High Court found this conclusion superficial, as the trial judge did not adequately discuss how the lease related to immovable property. The court emphasized that the agreement granted the defendant the right to use the printing press machinery and related items for three years, and the principal question was whether this right related to immovable property.

2. Nature of the Machinery as Immovable or Movable Property:
The High Court examined whether the machinery involved constituted immovable property. According to Section 2(6) of the Indian Registration Act, "immovable property" includes things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The Transfer of Property Act defines "attached to the earth" as rooted in, imbedded in, or attached to something imbedded in the earth for permanent beneficial enjoyment. The court concluded that the machinery did not meet these criteria. The building housing the press did not belong to the plaintiff but to a third party, and the plaintiff was merely a tenant. The machinery was not permanently fastened to the earth, nor was it intended for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the building. The agreement allowed the defendant to move the machinery, indicating it was not meant to be permanently affixed.

3. Validity of the Plaintiff's Claims Based on the Unregistered Lease Agreement:
The High Court reviewed several precedents to support its conclusion that the machinery was movable property. Cases cited included N.C. Macleod v. Kikabhoy Khushal, where machinery was not considered immovable property as it was not permanently fastened, and Khanchand v. Nur Muhammad, where a flour mill was deemed movable as it could be relocated. The court distinguished these cases from those presented by the respondent, such as Musai Kurmi v. Sub Karan Kurmi and Official Liquidator v. Sri Krishna Deo, where the machinery was considered immovable due to its permanent installation and intended use. The court held that the machinery in the present case did not fall within the definition of immovable property, and thus, the lease agreement did not require compulsory registration.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The case was remanded for further trial on the remaining issues, with both parties permitted to present additional evidence. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the case, given its prolonged duration. The contesting defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal, with other costs to be determined based on the final outcome. The parties were directed to appear in the trial court on September 21, 1964.

---