Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Doctrine of Fixtures under Property Law, Cheat Sheet of Property Law

The doctrine of fixtures refers to the legal principle that distinguishes between personal property and real property based on whether an item is fixed or attached to the land or a building. A fixture is considered part of the real property when it is affixed in a permanent way, making it part of the land or the structure itself. The determination of whether an item is a fixture or personal property depends on factors such as the method of attachment, the purpose of the attachment, and the intention of the party who installed it. Items that are intended to remain with the property, like built-in appliances or lighting, are fixtures, while items that are easily removable, like furniture or portable appliances, are considered personal property.

Typology: Cheat Sheet

2023/2024

Available from 12/03/2024

yash-anand-4
yash-anand-4 🇮🇳

6 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
DOCTRINE OF FIXTURES
- This doctrine evolved to define or view a thing which is chattel once but has later
become a part of the land. In India, it is defined as a permanent attachment or
fixed real property. This doctrine is invoked to fulfil the legal requirement to deal
with the matter relating to determining the chattel and fixture.
Meaning
- Fixtures mean the things which are physically attached to lad become the part
and property of the landowners.
- In Indian law, the movable property assumes to be immovable property for the
legal purpose is called fixtures.
- The things embedded into the earth or what is so embedded for the beneficial
enjoyment which is regarded as immovable property.
- When a property is considered as a xture any dealing with the property should
possess the legal requirement to deal as immovable property. If the chattel is
fixed to the soil or land by any means it is presumed to be an immovable
property and as a fixture.
- In English law, chattels are also considered immovable property. Whatever
planted onto the soil, belongs to the soil.
Requirement to consider the chattel as Fixture
- There are 2 modes to consider whether the chattel is a fixture. They are;
Mode of annexation
Purpose of annexation
Mode of Annexation
- If the chattel is aJixed in the land without any other means, it is not immovable
property.
- The chattel must be fixed with nails or any other means.
- If there is an intention to make the chattel fixed inn the land or soil or part of the
land then it is an immovable property.
Purpose of Annexing
- If the thing is attached to the land or soil for permanent enjoyment then it is
presumed to be a fixture.
- When the attachment is made for the beneficial enjoyment of the landlord and
the same is value to the land, it shall be considered as the immovable property
on considering the intention of the land owner.
Circumstances to invoke the distinction between Chattels and Fixtures:
- When there is a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser.
- When the chattel becomes the part of the land and as a part of the mortgage.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Doctrine of Fixtures under Property Law and more Cheat Sheet Property Law in PDF only on Docsity!

DOCTRINE OF FIXTURES

  • This doctrine evolved to define or view a thing which is chattel once but has later become a part of the land. In India, it is defined as a permanent attachment or fixed real property. This doctrine is invoked to fulfil the legal requirement to deal with the matter relating to determining the chattel and fixture. Meaning
  • Fixtures mean the things which are physically attached to lad become the part and property of the landowners.
  • In Indian law, the movable property assumes to be immovable property for the legal purpose is called fixtures.
  • The things embedded into the earth or what is so embedded for the beneficial enjoyment which is regarded as immovable property.
  • When a property is considered as a fixture any dealing with the property should possess the legal requirement to deal as immovable property. If the chattel is fixed to the soil or land by any means it is presumed to be an immovable property and as a fixture.
  • In English law, chattels are also considered immovable property. Whatever planted onto the soil, belongs to the soil. Requirement to consider the chattel as Fixture
  • There are 2 modes to consider whether the chattel is a fixture. They are;
  • Mode of annexation
  • Purpose of annexation Mode of Annexation
  • If the chattel is aJixed in the land without any other means, it is not immovable property.
  • The chattel must be fixed with nails or any other means.
  • If there is an intention to make the chattel fixed inn the land or soil or part of the land then it is an immovable property. Purpose of Annexing
  • If the thing is attached to the land or soil for permanent enjoyment then it is presumed to be a fixture.
  • When the attachment is made for the beneficial enjoyment of the landlord and the same is value to the land, it shall be considered as the immovable property on considering the intention of the land owner. Circumstances to invoke the distinction between Chattels and Fixtures:
  • When there is a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser.
  • When the chattel becomes the part of the land and as a part of the mortgage.
  • When there is a dispute between the beneficiary under a will of personal property and beneficiary of real property on the other hand. Quiquid Planatur solo Cedit
  • The doctrine of fixture is founded on the doctrine of quiquid planatur solo cedit which means whatever is attached to the land becomes the part of the land. Chattels when lost their temporary character and become permanent are determined as fixtures.
  • The doctrine is invoked to govern the matters between the landlord and the tenant, between the mortgage and the mortgagee who may lose their investment made in the land without application of the doctrine. CASE LAWS Case 1 Ismai kani rowthan vs. Nazarali Sahib Held- the maxim, ‘Quiquid Planatur solo Cedit’ has no application in India and that the established rule is that the lessee may remove at any time during the continuance of the lease, all things which he has attached to the earth, provided he leaves the property in the state in which he received it: Implying thereby that there is thus in India even less reason than England, for raising a plea of equitable estoppel against the landlord in the case of a lease for a term of years. Case 2 Silamani Sri Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam vs. Duraisamy nadar and Anr. Held – In Indian law, the maxim quicquid in ecificatur solo, solo cedit has no application to the present case. The rule established in India is that of section 108 of the TPA, which provides that “ the lessee may remove, at any time during the continuance at the lease, all things which he hs attached to the earth; provided he leaves the property in the state in which he received it. Case 3 Bishan Das & Others vs. state of Punjab &Others Held – A person who bona fide puts up constructions on land belonging to others wut their permission would not be a trespasser, nor would the buildings so constructed vest in the owner of the land by the application of the maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit, it is therefore, impossible to hold that in respect of dharamsala, temples and shops, the state has acquired any rights whatsoever merely by reason of their being on the land belonging to the state. Case 4 State of Madras vs. gannon Dunkerley &Co. (Madras) Ltd.