The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the nature of attachment, the circumstances of installation, and the object of the transaction in determining whether a transaction relates to immovable property.

Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal raises the question whether a security bond pledging an oil engine installed as part of a cinema can be deemed to be a transaction relating to immovable property so as to attract the provisions of Expl. 1 to Section 3, T.P. Act. The essential facts are the following: Defendant 5 owned a building which he let for a period of three years to defendants 1 and 2 who installed machinery therein and ran it as a cinema. We are now concerned with a 35 horse-power Petter oil engine which was used to work a dynamo to generate electricity for the apparatus and lighting. It is common ground that this engine was installed by making a concrete base fitted with bolts and attaching the engine to the bolts by means of nuts. The lease of defendants 1 and 2 expired in 1930 and there was a suit by defendant 5 for eviction and arrears of rent. Defendant 5 attached before judgment the machinery on the premises. That suit resulted in a compromise decree passed in October 1930 whereunder defendant 5 agreed to give defendants 1 and 2 a further lease for two years, the arrears of rent to be paid in instalments and there was a provision that in the event of default in paying any instalment the lease should cease and defendant 5 should be entitled to evict. The decree also recognized the subsistence of a charge by virtue of the attachment before judgment. It would appear that there was a default in the end of 1930 and an attempt to execute the decree. On 16th February 1931, when defendants 1 and 2 were still in possession of the premises, they borrowed money from the plaintiff and by way of security for the loan they pledged the machinery in the premises under Ex. A. Ex. A recites the existing charge in favour of defendant 5 for the arrears. The bond purports to be executed as a pledge of moveable property, but it was registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 325 of the Registration Manual in the book relating to immovable property. After this transaction defendant 5 brought further pressure to bear on defendants 1 and 2, as a result of which they executed a sale to defendant 5 of the machinery in the premises in order to discharge the arrears due to defendant 5. This sale deed says nothing about the prior security bond in favour of the plaintiff.

2. Now the question is whether defendant 5 can be deemed to have notice of the transaction embodied in the security bond. This question depends on whether this is or is not a transaction relating to immovable property so as to attract the provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 3, T.P. Act. The question is one of some difficulty involving as it does a consideration of the Indian statute law in relation to the English case law on similar facts. The statutory provisions are simple : it is their application which presents a difficulty. Immovable property is defined in Section 3, General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) as including land, benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. Section 3, T.P. Act, excludes from immovable property standing timber, growing crops or grass and defines the term "attached to the earth" as (a) rooted in the earth, (b) imbedded in the earth or (c) attached to what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it is attached. Now I think it is settled that the English law relating to fixtures does not apply in toto to India, Clearly, with reference to the right to fixtures as between landlord and tenant the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act are substantially different from the law obtaining in England. Nor is it an absolute rule in India that whatever is fixed to the soil belongs to the owner of the soil though this is a rule which applies in many cases.

3. In England it appears to be settled that when the owner of a building installs therein an engine similar to that with which we are now concerned by fixing it in a manner similar to tha