Relevant case laws distinguishing between movable and immovable properties

Vande Matram! Welcome to the series of Transfer of Property Law. Since the civilisation of humans, the concept of property is present and the laws related to it are evolving day by day. Let’s discuss the relevant case laws related to the difference between movable and immovable properties.

In the previous blog, we discussed the concept of the property and the differences between movable and immovable properties.

Relevant case laws distinguishing between movable and immovable properties:

1) Baijnath vs. Ramadhan and Anr, AIR 1963

Question: – Whether standing shisham or neem trees are standing timber within the meaning of section 2(6) of the act?

Judgment: – In this case, the court held that the prime importance is given to the intention. That the tree in question was meant to be dealt with the parties just to cut off or to use it as standing timber and not merely as a tree.

2) Shantabai vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532

Question: If a tree is beneficial for both wood and timber, like mango, will it be considered as movable or immovable property?

In this case, the court held that real intention will be considered, as to for what purpose was the tree planted. Entering into the land and cutting trees will fall under the category of benefits arising out of the land. If the tree is grown for fruits, it is considered as immovable property and if it is grown for timber then it is considered as moveable property.

3) Kapoor construction vs. Leela Nagaraj & Ors. AIR 2005

In this case, the court held that there are some important factors to determine whether the property is movable or immovable. The factors are: – Intention, Mode of annexation, and Degree of annexation.

4) Marshall Vs Green

It was held that the interest of the contract will determine the tree as moveable property or immovable property. The Contract of sale will be considered in such cases.

5) Mahadeo v. State of Bombay [AIR 1959 SC 735]

The distinction which prevailed in English law between fructus naturales and fructus industriales does not exist in Indian law, and the only question which would ‘fall to be considered in India is whether a transaction concerns ‘goods’ or ‘movable property’ or ‘immovable property’. The importance of this question is twofold: (1) in the case of immovable property, a document of the kind specified in Section 17 of the Registration Act requires to be compulsorily registered and if it is not so registered, the consequences mentioned in ‘Sections 49 and 50 of that Act follow, while a document relating to goods or moveable property is not required to be registered; and (2) by reason of the interpretation placed on Entry 54 in List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India by this Court a State cannot levy a tax on the sale or purchase of any property other than ‘goods’.

6) Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa [AIR 1956 SC 17]

A ‘benefit to arise out of land’ is an interest in land and therefore immovable property.

These are all the cases related to the definition of property and distinguishing between movable and immovable properties.

Thanks for reading till the end. Note down all the important points for your preparation and Best of Luck for your exams! Please share this blog.

#Bharat #India #StudyHelp #Notes #StudyMaterial #TransferOfPropertyLaw #PropertyLaw #LawsOfProperty

Read More

List of references:

1) Difference between Movable and Immovable Property

2) Movable And Immovable Property – Meaning And Differences

3) Property

====================