Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Immovable and Movable Property ( Bamdev Panigrahi v Monorama Raj)

-

Facts: 

The plaintiff’s husband, late Profulla Kumar Raj was conducting a business under the name of 'Kumar Touring Talkies'. He obtained land under possessory mortgage from the Raja of Mandasa in 1957, and built a temporary cinema structure and erected a temporary pandal over it. For the purposes of exhibiting cinema shows, he purchased a cinema projector and a diesel oil engine. This equipment was embedded and installed in earth by construction of foundation. For the purpose of running the cinema shows, plaintiff’s husband, applied and got a license that was purely temporary for a period of one year from the concerned authorities. He allegedly entrusted the management of this business to his friend Bamadev Panigrahi (defendant), out of trust and confidence in him. However, the defendant colluded with the Rajah and obtained the mortgage in his name. Plaintiff’s husband issued a notice in May 1961, calling upon the defendant to render correct account of the management of the entire cinema concern including the machinery, equipments, records, etc. the defendant denied his liability to account for the management of Kumar Touring Talkies by a written reply in June 1961. Plaintiff’s husband became sick in 1963, and continued to be so till Aug 1965, when he died. Thereupon, plaintiff filed a suit in July 1966, praying for a declaration that she was the owner of Kumar Touring Talkies, and a direction that the equipment including the cinema projector and the diesel oil engine be returned to her. 



Issue: 

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was in decree of movable or immovable property? 

Ratio Decidendi:

The court, in such cases, even before going into the merits of the case, has to decide the character of the property. If it comes to the conclusion that the disputed property is immovable, it will go ahead and decide the case on merits, and if it concludes that such property is movable, then the case will be dismissed as time barred, it having been filed after more than three years from the date the right or claim was denied. The court here noted that the operation of the business by its very name, 'Kumar Touring Talkies' showed that exhibiting cinema shows at a specific place was purely temporary. Therefore, even if the two items of disputed property were attached and embedded in earth, the intention can only be to have them affixed to earth temporarily. The license to exhibit the shows was only for a period of one year, and there was no guarantee that the owner would have applied for its renewal or the authorities would have renewed it. Thirdly, the person who fixed them to the land was not the owner of the land. These items were in fact removed from the land subsequently. The court held that these were movable properties and the suit being time barred was dismissed.

Judgement:

The appeal was dismissed.

Reference: IndianKanoon

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Constitutionalism- Explained

-
Image
In simple words, Constitutionalism is a doctrine that a government’s authority is determined by a body of laws or constitution. More generally constitutionalism refers to efforts to prevent arbitrary government.   [1]    Constitutionalism is based on the idea of political theories of John Locke and the founders of the American republic, that government can and should be legally limited in its powers, and that its authority or legitimacy depends on its observing these limitations. The central point of Constitutionalism is a “Limited Government”. Constitutionalism recognises the need for a government but at the same time also insists upon restraining its (government’s) power.  [2]   Epitome of Constitutionalism is Magna Carta issued in 1215 that limited the power of England’s King John. Constitutionalism places limits upon the arbitrary    powers of the three government power: legislative power (making new laws), executive power (implementing laws) and j...
Read more

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 319, Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence (Leading Case law: Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab )

-
Image
Facts: On June 24, 2004, Hardeep Singh was ploughing the land. The accused persons went there with deadly weapons and caused injuries to Hardeep Singh as well as other prosecution witnesses. First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against many of the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 336 and 427 read with Sections 120B, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as also for offences punishable under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused were arrested. Vijay Preet Singh (respondent No. 2) was one of them but the father of Vijay Singh interfered in investigation. Hence, he was discharged before framing of the charges. Moreover, Jagtar Singh (respondent No.3) whose name was not mentioned in the FIR, but as per witnesses also involved. The appeal is brought before the constitutional bench of Supreme Court because the division bench came onto differing opinion as to the additions of the respondent 2 and 3 to the case using sec...
Read more

Section 125 CrPC: Maintenance (Sanjay Damodar Kale Vs Kalyani Sanjay Kale and Anr)

-
Image
Facts: The couple got married on November 12, 1997 in accordance with Hindu religious rites and ceremony. According to the applicant wife, since the inception of marital life the respondent husband treated her with extreme cruelty. She was dropped at her parental home at Satara in the month of January, 1999 by her husband. Despite repeated assurances, the respondent did not come to fetch her back to her marital home. Subsequently, in April, 2007 the respondent expressed his desire to obtain divorce from the applicant and they settled for mutual divorce. Despite the decree of dissolution of marriage, the respondent continued to visit the applicant at her apartment and had marital relations as well. But, from September 2012, the respondent husband stopped visiting the applicant's house. Applicant wife claimed he made no provision for her maintenance and livelihood as she has no source of income.   The Respondent appeared and resisted the claim the applicant wife had opened a beauty p...
Read more