UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM AND ENERGY

STUDIES

Subject – Transfer of Property and Easement Law

Faculty – Ms. Poonam Singh

Topic – Understanding doctrine of fixture, a mode to determine immovable

property.

Batch -BBA LLB Batch 3

Semester – 5th

Prepared by –

Name Sap id Roll no

Kalyani Singh 500077357 R760219108

Anushk Alok 500077358 R760219127

Property

The term property is not defined anywhere in the Act. It is right over a thing that is tangible
or intangible which is scarce and is of value. It does not only include physical object but it
also includes the rights and interests derived from the physical object as well.

The property can be classified into various categories that are tangible, intangible, real and
personal, corporeal and incorporeal, movable and immovable. The transfer of property
primarily concerns with distinction between movable and immovable property.

The immovable property is defined under section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act.
However, it does not give clear definition of the immovable property. Hence, we have to
look General Clause Act 1897 and The Registration Act 1908 to get more clear explanation
of the term.

Immovable property is defined under sec 3 of the TPA that is Standing timber, growing
crops or grass are not included under immovable property. The standing timber are in state
which is ready to cut for the purpose of construction, growing crops includes vegetable has
no existence other than its produce and intention is to serve. Then all these three excluded
things will fall under the movable property.

The Registration Act 1908 defines it as” land, buildings, hereditary allowances, right to
ways, lights, ferries, fisheries or any other benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to
the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth, but not standing
timber, growing crops, or grass “

General Clause Act 1897 defines – “it should include land, benefits to arise out of land, and
things attached to the earth, as permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth”

Doctrine of fixture

It is one of the modes which helps to determine when the movable property becomes a
fixture (immovable).

Doctrine of fixture under English law – it can be understood through two maxims that are.
  Quicquid Plantatur Solo, Solo credit – Whatever planted in the Earth, becomes the
part of the Earth, And the person who owns the piece of the Earth will also own the
thing planted in that piece of the Earth.
 Quicquid inaedificatur Solo, Solo credit - Anything which is built or embedded
into or attached to soil will become the part of the Earth. And the person who owns
that piece of that Earth will also become the owner of the thing attached/built in or
embed.

Exception for these two maxims is: -

 Contract to the Contrary - Example – There is a land which belong to A and B

install the pump & machinery on that part of the land. And there is no contract
between A and B that the ownership of pump & machinery will sustain with B.
Hence in such cases there will be no application of the above doctrine.
 Trade fixture – Means, all those things which are attached/ embedded by the tenant
for its benefit or carrying its trade. Example – There is a land belongs to A, which he
gives to B, who has partnership firm, and for the office work set up an office and
install heavy iron gate that are embedded in Earth. Even though there is no contract
to the contrary, the ownership of iron gates will be with B.

Doctrine of Fixture under Indian Law

Indian Fixture law are not completely similar to the English law. There are some
modifications in Indian law. These are the test to determine whether the fixture
becomes the part of the Earth or not that are:
 Mode of attachment and consequences of its detachment – In this we have to see
the nature of attachment.
whether it is Permanently fixed to soil or not – When the object which is embedded
in the Earth is such that it can be easily removed, it does not form the part of the
Earth. And such attachment is temporary in nature. And when the object is attached
to the Earth with some external fixture such as cement, nuts/ bolts then it will be
presumed that it become the part of the Earth.
Whether removal would cause injury which will be much greater to the landlord than
the benefit from the material when removed, would be to the tenant – The removal of
object is such that destroyed or losses its value or the support losses its value then it
will be said the attachment become the part of the Earth.
 Example – anchor of the ship which can be easily removed does not form the part of
the land., Machinery attached to the attach to the earth which can be easily detached,
does not form the part of the land, equipment of a touring cinema, being collapsible
and easily removed, are movables

 Object/ intention of attachment – It has to be determined on the basis of the facts

and circumstances of each case. If the attachment is such that it is for the purpose of
enjoyment only then the attachment will not form the part of the Earth.
 By whom it is attached – The general presumption is that nobody will improve the
land belongs to someone. If the owner of the land fix anything on his land. It will be
presumed that it is for permanent enjoyment and if the same is attached by the tenant
it will be presumed that is for the temporary enjoyment. Example – if the owner of
the land put lights and fans in the room it is for the permanent enjoyment. And when
tenant puts lights and fans it can be deduced from the fact it will be for the temporary
enjoyment.
Case
 Venkatlal G. Pittie & Anr vs Bright Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd1
In this case appellant had let out the premises in question to the respondent, filed a suit for
eviction on the respondent on the ground that the tenant had erected unauthorised permanent
structure which is violative of section 108 of the transfer of property, sec 13(1)(b) of the
Bombay Rents.
Issue - whether a particular structure constructed by the tenant was a permanent in nature or
not?

Held – In this case Court has consider following things that are intention of the party who
put up the structure, intention was to be gathered from the mode and degree of annexation,
whether the structure cannot be removed without doing irreparable damage to the demised
premises then that would be certainly one of the circumstances to be considered while
deciding the question of intention, the purpose of erecting the structure and the nature of the
materials used for the structure. In this case the trial court as well as the appellate court had
held that the structures were permanent on the basis of evidence. The Court of Small Cause
held that the structures were of a permanent nature and ordered eviction of the tenant on the
ground of permanent construction. The HC has taken the different view; however, it does

1
(1987) 3 SCC 588
not satisfy the ground. In this case Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court and
restore the order of the appellate bench of Court of Small Causes 

Reference
 Indian kanoon
 SCC online
 Property Law by Poonam Pradhan Saxena
 The Transfer of Property Act, 1882