Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

Difference Between Movable and Immovable Property

This article is written by a second-year student of Delhi University, Faculty of Law, on a very indispensable topic in Property Law. 

Movable Property



Definition -
    1. Transfer of Property Act, of 1882 does not define "movable Property" explicitly however movable property is that property which can be moved from one place to another.
    2. Section 2 Sale of Goods Act -  Movable property includes stocks, shares, growing crops, and grass. 
    3. General Clause Act, 1897- Movable property shall mean the property of every description except immovable property 
  1. Registration
    • To Transfer a movable Property registration is not required by law. 
  2. Examples of movable property are jewelry, cars Etc.


Immovable property 


  1. Definition -
    1. Immovable property are those properties that are unable to change their place.
    2.  "Indian Registration Act,1908" immovable property includes ;
      • Land 
      • Building 
      • Hereditary allowance (payable out of income of land ) 
      • Right to ways 
      • Lights 
      • Ferries 
      • Fisheries
      • Any benefit arises out of land 
      • Things attached to the earth. 
    3. "General Clause Act" , 1897 - Section 3(26)  of  it includes -
      • Land 
      • Benefits arise out of land
      • Things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. 
    4. Section 3 of TPA lays that "Immovable property" does not include-
      • Standing timber 
      • Growing crops
      • Grass. 
  2. Registration - According to TPA,1872, to transfer an immovable property, the instrument used for the transfer must be registered.
  3. Attestation - The instrument transferring the immovable property also has to be attested by at least two witnesses, according to TPA,1872

Some case laws to clear the concepts of movable and immovable are;
  1. Shantabai vs state of Bombay, 1958 (Discussed benefit arising out of the land)
  2. Bamadev Panigrahi vs Manorama Raj,1974 (Movable property as in the immovable property things attached to the earth we see the intention of the party to attach that property to the earth for temporary time or permanent), etc. 
                                                                ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more