Temporary annexation of printing press machinery did not create immovable property, so registration was not compulsory.

Machinery installed in a printing press was held not to be immovable property because its annexation was temporary and tied to the subsistence of the arrangement. The premises belonged to a third party and were occupied by the tenant, the agreement expressly permitted removal of the machinery, and the setup contemplated alternate accommodation rather than permanent fixation to the building. Applying the statutory test of attachment and the object of annexation, the court treated the machinery as not fixed for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the premises. The agreement was therefore not compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreement for running the printing press, including the machinery, constituted a transaction relating to immovable property so as to require compulsory registration.

Analysis: The decisive question was whether the machinery installed in the premises had become immovable property by reason of its attachment. Under the statutory definition, a thing is immovable only if it is attached to the earth or permanently fastened to something attached to the earth, and the more important inquiry is the object of annexation. The building belonged to a third party and was occupied by the plaintiff only as a tenant; the machinery was installed in that temporary setting, the agreement expressly allowed removal of the machinery, and the arrangement contemplated alternative accommodation rather than permanent fixation to the existing premises. On those facts, the machinery was not fixed for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the building, but only for the use of the press during the subsistence of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The machinery was not immovable property, and the agreement was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act.

---