Chattel attached to the earth or building is immovable property.

This appeal, under the Letters Patent, is from the judgment of Venkatadri, J., by which he reversed the decree of the appellate Court below him and decreed the suit. The first respondent having defaulted in repayment of a loan obtained from the State, the second respondent, under the provisions of the Land Improvements Loan Act, the Petter engine and pump-set, which the first respondent had purchased out of the funds provided by the loan, were attached in recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, and brought to sale. The appellant was the purchaser. He was impleaded as the second defendant in the suit, which was to set aside the sale on the ground, among others, that the engine being a permanent fixture to the land, it was an immovable property, and that in the recovery proceedings the procedure applicable to such property having not been applied, the sale itself was invalid. The first two Courts below differed in their view as to the nature of the property, the first appellate Court being of opinion that it was not an immovable property. Venkatadri, J., was not prepared to accept that view and stated:

“When once a land owner borrows money from the State and purchases an oil engine and fixes it to his land, it must be deemed to be part of the immovable property as his intention is to make the machine a permanent fixture imbedded to the earth. Since the object is for the beneficial enjoyment of the land, it is immaterial whether he subsequently removes the machinery from place to place in any part of the land. Wherever it is fixed, it becomes immovable property.”

The learned Judge, in the course of his judgment, referred to certain tests, both English and Indian, and summed up that two tests have been laid down to determine the question: (1) the degree or mode of annexation, and (2) the object of annexation; but in applying these tests it does not appear that the factual basis has been kept in view. The trial Court assumed that the engine and pump-set were fixed permanently to the earth from 1952. The first appellate Court, with reference to the notice preceding the attachment and sale in recovery proceedings and the conduct of the first respondent himself, was inclined to think that the engine and pump-set, when sold, were movable property. Apparently, at that time, the engine had been detached from its base in a room on the land of the first respondent.

The question whether when a chattel is attached to the earth or a building, it is immovable property, is a mixed question of law and fact, and has to be decided in the light of particular facts in each case. Obvious cases may not call for tests.

Where doubt arises, certain tests have been formulated in particular contexts which if literally applied, may not yield always a proper and correct result. While general tests pointed out by judicial decisions, in the light of specific facts, may be borne in mind, eventually the decision on the question should depend upon how the Court looking at the facts as a whole, feels on the matter.

‘Immovable property’ is defined at least in three Indian enactments the General Glauses Act, the Registration Act and the Transfer of Property Act The first two are not of much assistance, for they merely say that 'immovable property' includes things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything attached to earth. They give no guidance as to what is meant by 'attached' or 'permanently fastened.' The third enactment, by section 3, describes what is meant by 'attached to the earth', to wit, (a) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs; (6) imbedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or (c) attached to what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it is attached. Broadly speaking, the degree, manner, extent and strength of attachment of the chattel to the earth or building, are the main features to be regarded All the three aspects, in the d