TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (8) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hould give up the contract before the stipulated period of three years, he would be responsible for reimbursing the plaintiff for such loss as might be caused to it thereby. A list of the entire machinery, types, furniture etc., was prepared, and signatures of the defendant were obtained thereon, and it was also agreed that the defendant would return certain quantities of unused types as well as used types, which had been given over to him, or their price at the end of the expiry of the lease. Another important condition of the agreement was that liberty was reserved for the defendant to be able to remove the printing machines to any other place in the city of Jodhpur (where the press was situated) provided that the defendant would bring the machines back to such place as the plaintiff might desire. Yet another condition was that in case the defendant should think it fit to hire another house for carrying on the business of the press, then such alternative accommodation should be obtained with the consent of the directors of the plaintiff company and the rent note therefore executed in the name of the plaintiff company and the defendant would continue to pay the rent on behalf o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e trial of the case need not be proceeded with. The learned trial Judge accepted this plea, and, by his judgment under appeal, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence the present appeal. 6. The only question which thus emerges for decision in this appeal is whether the finding of the learned Judge that the suit agreement was compulsorily registrable is correct. At the very outset, we should like to point out that the order of the learned Judge by which he came to the conclusion that the agreement in question was compulsorily registrable is more or less superficial. All that he says in this connection is that the agreement amounted to a lease, that it was executed both by the lessor and the lessee, that the rate of hire was mentioned, therein, and so also the period for which it was to subsist, and that it related to both moveable and immoveable property, and further it was a completed document of lease and not merely an agreement to that end. The leamed Judge has not at all discussed the question bow the so-called lease in the present case related to immoveable property. As we have already given the gist of the Agreement, which was executed between the parties, it clearly s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was attached to something which is imbedded in the earth for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the building to which it was attached. Or can it be said within the definition of the expression immovable property as given in Section 2(6) of the Registration Act that the machinery was permanently fastened to something which was attached to the earth. We have given our most careful and anxious consideration to this aspect of the case and are unable to agree with the conclusion of the learned Judge below that the machinery in the present case fulfils any of these requirements. 9. Now, it has been conceded before us, and, even if it were not conceded no other conclusion is possible, that the building in which the press was situated did not belong to the plaintiff itself. There is plenty of material on the record to show that the building itself belonged to a third party, and that the plaintiff was in possession of that building merely as a tenant. There is nothing on the record to show what were the terms of the tenancy between that third party and the plaintiff, and, in the absence thereof, we can only presume that it was not at all a case of permanent or a long term tenancy bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te a few cases. 12. In N.C. Macleod v. Kikabhoy Khushal, ILR 25 Bom 659 by a certain instrument the defendant covenanted with the plaintiff that the machinery, engines, plant etc., belonging to him and specified in a schedule appended thereto should stand charged with, and remain as security to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 8,000/- and the power was vested in the plaintiff to sell the same on default in payment. The question arose whether the plaintiff's charge was invalid for want of registration. It was held that of the annexed articles none were attached to the earth; they were at most fastened to that which was attached to the earth, but that was not enough because they must have been permanently fastened. It was further held that the evidence as to the extent and intention of annexation was rather meagre, but, having regard to the consideration that the defendant who erected them was only a monthly tenant, it c6uld not be held that they were permanently fastened; therefore, Section 17 of the Registration Act would not apply. 13. In Khanchand v. Nur Muhammad, AIR 1936 Lah 242 the question was whether a flour mill which could be removed from one place to another was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vable property as a result of attachment or annexation to land, two tests have been laid down, viz. (i) the degree or mode of annexation, and (2) the object of annexation; and that of the two tests the latter is the more important, and the answer to that must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. This was a case in which the machinery was erected by A on land which belonged to B and it was held that the machinery was erected by A either as. a licensee or as a temporary tenant and that he could not have intended the machinery to form part and parcel of the immovable property to which it was attached for the time being. 16. The last case to which reference may be made is Addu Achiar v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, AIR 1953 Hyd 14. This was also a case of a tenant running a factory in the premises of another. It was held that the tenant installed the machinery with the intention of removing the same whenever he chose to vacate the premises and consequently the machinery did not constitute an immoveable property. 17. As against these cases, learned counsel for the contesting respondent invited our attention to two cases (i) Musai Kurmi v. Sub Karan Kurmi, 23 ....