FIXTURES AND CHATTELS

(Project submission towards the partial fulfilment of the assessment in the subject of
Law of Property, UG Semester-IV)

MR. ANIRUDDH PANICKER

SUBMITTED TO FACULTY OF LAW

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SUBMITTED BY HARSH SEHRA (ROLL NO. 2020)

DATE OF SUBMISSION 12 MARCH, 2024

Winter semester (January-May 2024)

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are whole heartedly thankful to the almighty who gave us enough skills and patience to
complete our project work. We are also deeply indebted and thankful to our Law of Property
teacher, Mr. Aniruddh Panicker, for honing our skills and enabling us through his guidance
and advice in completing this project and blessing us with the knowledge during this period
of learning. His keen interest, constant inspiration and encouragement gave us the strength to
put our best for completion of this project.

We also extend our thanks to the librarians of NLU, Jodhpur, especially the law department.

We are also grateful to all our friends who have been there, with us, while we worked on this

project, supporting us, both, mentally and emotionally.

We are mostly grateful to our loving parents, without whose support, we wouldn’t be where
we are.

We also express our immense debt and gratitude to the learned authors whose works we have

consulted.

Harsh Sehra

INTRODUCTION

Chattels are any property except freehold land and are usually movable items of property that
are neither land nor permanently attached to land or a building, either directly or vicariously
through attachment to real property. Despite close association with the property, chattels are
said to retain their independent character as personality. Chattels that are affixed in any form

2
to make a permanent improvement of land are retained by a mortgagee unless otherwise
stated in a sales contract or intentionally left out in conveyance report.

The Doctrine of Fixtures comes under the ambit of Section 3 1 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, which is the interpretation clause. It states:

The distinction between fixtures and chattels is made by, one, the physical degree of
annexation to land. A less irreversible and a more permanently object affixed to land, is more
likely to be defined as a fixture and become a part of land. This was clearly outlined in
Holland v Hodgson2.

In Hulme v. Bingham,3 heavy machinery unattached to land was considered as chattel. The
key feature of the gravity test was any object that rests merely on land due to its own weight.
This test was also used in Botham v. TSB Bank PLC 4, where it was held that appliances
remaining in position by their own weights and those which are affixed electrically would
likely be chattel. In Gray v. Gray, the position mentioned above was challenged, and an
objective view was taken. The key point of the argument was a degree of annexation. If an
object has been attached, no matter the degree of which it was affixed, the intent for that
object to be permanently affixed to enhance the use and enjoyment of land is fair to be called
a fixture. For example, an installation of a home cinema complete with a cooking range
would be an improvement to property.

A number of tests have been used to differentiate between fixtures and chattels, but a matter
of precise analysis has to be used as a determinant. Blackburn J. in Holland v. Hodgson 5 sums
it up as;

1
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 3: Interpretation clause.
2
Holland v. Hodgson, LR7 CPP 328, 335.
3
Hulme v Bingham, (1943) KB 152.
4
Botham v TSB Bank PLC (1996), 73 P. CR D 1. 5 Holland v. Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328.
There is no doubt that the general maxim of the law is, that what is annexed to the land
becomes part of the land; but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say with precision what
constitutes an annexation sufficient for this purpose. It is a question which must depend on
the circumstances of each case, and mainly on two circumstances, as indicating the intention,
viz., the degree of annexation and the object of the annexation.1

1 6 Supra note 5.

3
"Thus, blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar or cement for the
purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land, though the same stones,
if deposited in a builder's yard and for convenience sake stacked on the top of each other in
the form of a wall, would remain chattels."

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIXTURES AND CHATTELS

Fixtures refer to material objects that are physically connected to the land and, therefore,
become an inherent part of the landowner's property. When an object is classified as a fixture,
it essentially becomes inseparable from the land, and as such, it is transferred automatically
with all subsequent land conveyances unless it is legally separated from it.

Chattels, on the other hand, are physical objects that are not attached to land, despite being in
close proximity to it. As a result, chattels do not transfer with land conveyances. They are
movable and can be bought, sold, and owned separately from the land on which they are
placed.

QUICQUID PLANTATUR SOLO CEDIT

In property law, the law of fixtures is founded on the maxim ‘quicquid plantatur solo cedit’.
That is, whatever is attached to the land becomes a part thereof. Chattels that are so affixed to
the land as to become a part of it, loses its character as chattel and passes with the ownership
of the land. Chattels are therefore of a temporary nature while fixtures are permanent.

The above-mentioned maxim was originally used to prevent economic waste when the heir
was given the land and the severed chattel was given to the personal representative. This was
to avoid the destruction that would result from severing the chattel from the freehold.
However, this principle has been expanded to cover issues between landlords and tenants, and
mortgagors and mortgagees, who could potentially lose their investments due to the
application of the maxim.

The above definitions highlighting the difference between fixtures and chattels are not
considered adequate or straightforward to apply in every instance when a determination has
to be made as to the existence of them both. The question of whether a chattel is a fixture is a
question of law for the judge and the circumstances of the case and can be difficult to answer.
A decision in one case will not necessarily be a guide to another case.

4
5
 TESTS FOR DETERMINING FIXTURES AND CHATTELS

The correct approach is that objects which are not attached to the land other than by their own
weight should not be considered part of the land, unless there are circumstances that
demonstrate an intention to make them a part of the land. The burden of proof lies on those
who claim that the object has ceased to be a chattel. On the other hand, objects that are even
slightly affixed to the land are considered part of the land, unless there are circumstances that
indicate they were intended to be chattels. The burden of proof in this case lies on those who
contend that the object is a chattel.

In common law, there are two tests for determining whether an object is a fixture or a chattel.
That is, when does a chattel that has been attached to the land, loses its characteristic as a
chattel and becomes a fixture? The criteria for determining whether the chattel is affixed to
the land and then becomes a fixture were stated by Wooding C.J. in Mitchell v Cowie. 7 They
are:

• A house maybe a chattel or a fixture depending on whether it was intended to be part

of the land on which it stands. But the intention is to be determined objectively rather
than subjectively.
• To distinguish whether it is a chattel or fixture, consideration whether the house is
affixed to the land or not must be taken into account.
• If the house is not affixed to the land but rather rests on its own weight, then is will be
generally deemed to be a chattel unless it can be proven that it was intended to be part
of the land.
• If it is affixed to the land then it will generally be held to be a chattel unless it can be
proven that it was intended to be a chattel for the remainder of its existence.

Cases such as Teaff v Hewitt8 among others established that the guiding principle is the
intention with which the object is affixed to the property. Factors to consider are:

• The relation of the land of the party making the annexation.

• The degree of annexation.
• Purpose of annexation.

6
7
Mitchell v Cowie (1964) 7 WIR 118.
8
Teaff v Hewitt (1853) 1 Ohio St. 511.
• Damage to the land and the chattel on removal.
• Custom and usage.

ANNEXOR’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE LAND

A person who attaches a chattel to his own land is usually assumed to have done so
permanently and meant it to become part of the land. As related to tenancy, the case of O’
Brien Loans Limited v. Missick,2 Georges J.A stated, that in the case a yearly tenant erects a
wooden house to a column anchored in the ground, there would be no reason why it would
lose its characteristic as a chattel and become a fixture, however a long term lease holder who
erects such a structure would be reasonably held to have done so for the purpose of
improving the land.

THE DEGREE OF ANNEXATION

According to the degree of annexation test, an article is a fixture if it is attached to land or a
building in a substantial manner, such as by nails or screws. The more firmly or irreversibly
the object is affixed to the earth or a building, the more likely it is to be classified as a fixture.
There must be a physical connection with the land or with something that is part of the land
and object.

Lord Blackburn’s dictum in Holland v. Hodgson,10 has often been cited in establishing the
rule with regard to chattels and fixtures. He suggests that, if there is no attachment, one can
assume it is a chattel. He observed that: ‘…when the article in question is no further attached
to the land by its own weight, it is generally considered to be a mere chattel’.

The burden of proof is on anyone contending the existence of a fixture. If it is attached to the
land even slightly, it is considered to be a fixture. Then the burden shifts to the person who
contends that it is a chattel.

2 O’ Brien Loans Limited v. Missick (1977) 1 BLR 40. 10

Supra.

7
According to Cheshire and Burn, under the test of degree of annexation, the general rule is
that a chattel is not deemed to be a fixture unless it is actually fastened or connected to the
land or building. Mere juxtaposition or lying of an article, however heavy, does not prima

facie make it a fixture. Under object of annexation, the test is to ascertain whether the chattel
has been fixed for its use as a chattel or for the more convenient use of the land or building.

In the case of Elitestone Ltd v. Morris3, the defendant bought a bungalow on the 27 plots of
land owned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought possession of the premises for
redevelopment, the defendant resisted on the grounds of protection under the Rent Act 1977
and the plaintiffs claimed that the protection did not cover chattels. The bungalow was part of
the land, and could not be removed without destroying it. Lloyd observed that the bungalow
is not removable in one piece, nor is demountable for re erection elsewhere. However, in the
case of Billing v Pill,4 where the courts had to consider whether an army hut resting on a
concrete foundation and secured by bolts onto the concrete, and which could be dismantled
and removed easily without damaging it, was a fixture or not, the courts held that the hut was
temporarily used to provide sleeping accommodation for soldiers, etc., and that it could be
removed without damaging the freehold, and was thus a chattel.

DAMAGE TO THE CHATTEL ON REMOVAL

Where the circumstances, the situation and the nature of a structure placed on land are such
that the removal of the article would lead to its destruction, the obvious inference is that it
was not intended to be removed from the site, and was intended to permanently remain on the
property. In this instance, it ranks as a fixture.

The opposite of this is not followed. That is, even it can be removed without destruction it
does not mean that it is a chattel. However, the question arises about the intention, whether it
was intended to be part of the land.

3 Elitestone Ltd v. Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687.

4 Billing v Pill (1953) 2 All ER 1061.

8
 THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION

The determination of the status of an item is not conclusively determined by the degree of
annexation. If the circumstances show that the object was intended to form part of the
landscaping or architectural design of the premises and is resting by their own weight, then
they can be regarded as fixtures.

Items attached to the land for the purpose of enjoyment are regarded as chattels. In Leigh v.
Taylor13, Madame de Falbe was a life tenant. She hung in the drawing room of her
mansionhouse valuable tapestries, which belonged to her. Strips of wood were placed over
the wallpaper on the walls and were fastened by nails to the walls. Canvas was stretched over
the strips of wood and nailed to them. The tapestries were stretched over the canvas and
fastened by tacks to the canvas and the pieces of wood.

The House of Lords held that these tapestries were chattels, which were affixed to the walls
for their own better enjoyment as tapestries. Lord Halsbury, with whom the other members of
the House of Lords agreed, observed:

“Where it is something which, although it may be attached … to the walls of the house, yet,
having regard to the nature of the thing itself, and the purpose of its being placed there, is not
intended to form part of the property, but is only a mode of enjoyment of the thing, while the
person is temporarily there, and is there for the purpose of his or her enjoyment then it is
removable and goes to the executor (of the life tenant) … (at 158)

The broad principle is that, unless it has become part of the house in any intelligible sense, it
is not a thing, which passes to the air. I am of opinion that this tapestry has not become part of
the house, and was never intended in any way to become part of the house.” (at 161)

The nature of the premises is also a factor. For example, the carpets in a residential home
would be considered as chattel as opposed to wall-to-wall carpeting on the floor of a hotel
that would be considered a fixture since the attachment in the hotel was for the better use of
the building rather than the better use of carpeting.

9
13
Leigh v. Taylor [1902] AC 157.
In Berkley v. Poulett,5 pictures were fixed in the recesses of paneling of two rooms of the
estate of the defendant and there was a heavy statue of a Greek athlete. The estate had been
purchased by the plaintiff, and the defendant removed the items. The plaintiff sued for
compensation or delivery of the items. The Court was of the view that the pictures and the
statue was much to the taste of the occupier of the estate at that time and were not fixtures
which passed to the purchaser of a house but chattels that the vendor could remove.

Also it can be argued that a tenant erects a structure on the land, he does not do so for the
enjoyment of the land of another person, but for the accommodation that the chattel provides.

ADAPTATION
If an article is constructed and adapted for an attachment to the property and there is intention
to make it part of it, it will be classified as a fixture. On the other hand, if an article has no
special or peculiar adaption to the property then it would retain its chattel characteristic.
Examples of chattels would include domestic animals and equipment on a farm.

5 Berkley v. Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR 86.

1
0
 4. CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN FIXTURES AND CHATTELS

There are three circumstances in which it is necessary to determine whether a chattel remains
a chattel or alternatively has become a fixture. They are:

• a dispute between a vendor and a purchaser;

• a dispute between a mortgagor and a mortgagee, where the mortgagee will
wish to argue that certain chattels have become part of the land and, as a
result, are part of the mortgage security;
• a dispute between a beneficiary under a will of personal property, on the one
hand, and a beneficiary of real property, on the other hand.

EXAMINATION OF THE RULES

The basic common law rules utilized to determine if an item is a fixture or not were set out in
the following:

1) That articles not otherwise attached to the land than by their own weight are
not to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to
show that they were intended to be part of the land. In the final analysis, what
constitutes a fixture is a question to be determined by the facts in each case.
An item fixed solely by its own weight generally remains a chattel; and an
item molded into a scheme of ornamentation, so that the scheme would be
wholly inadequate without it, usually becomes a fixture. However, both these
propositions may be reversed if that would lend better credence to the
predetermination of the parties. Thus, items fixed purely for domestic
ornamentation may be removed before the end of a lease, or prior to an
unconditional contact of sale, without notice to the landlord or prospective
purchaser, but trees and plants are an essential part of the land and should not
be removed without prior agreement.

1
1
 2) That articles affixed to the land even slightly are to be considered part of the
land unless the circumstances are such as to show that they were intended to
continue chattels.
3) That the circumstances necessary to be shown to alter the prima facie
character of the articles are circumstances which show the degree of
annexation and object of such annexation, which are patent to all to see.
4) That the intention of the person affixing the article to the soil is material only
in so far as it can be presumed from the degree and object of the annexation.6

Prima facie, a chattel will become a fixture when it is physically attached, or annexed to the
land. In Holland v. Hodgson7 the owner of a mill installed looms which were attached to the
stone floor by means of nails driven through holes in their feet.

Therefore, in summary the rules are:

I. If the item is not attached, it is presumed to be a chattel;

II. If the item is attached, it is presumed to be a fixture;
III. The presumption of the item being either a chattel or a fixture can be rebutted,
if on visible inspection it may be seen;
i. The degree of annexation; and
ii. The object of annexation;
IV. The intention of the affixing party is not material, unless such intention can be
determined, presumed or inferred simply by examination of the item itself.

That means if it's attached, it's probably a fixture. If it's not attached, it's probably a chattel. If
the party placing the item upon the property was doing so to improve the property, then this
item is a fixture. If there were no intention to improve the property, but the item was indeed
affixed, then this item is still a chattel. Intention is to be inferred from examination of the
item. And, there are two factors here: the degree (or amount) of annexation, and the object or
purpose of the annexation.

Those are the actual common law rules. Beyond that, legal practitioners will have to apply
those rules and arrive at a determination based upon the application of the rules to the facts in
a particular case.

6 Supra.
7 Supra.

1
2
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE:
The basic rule is that anything annexed to land is land. However the court have long accepted
that something which is affixed merely to facilitate its display, or in order to steady it, is not
to be regarded as becoming part of the land. Thus in Leigh v. Taylor 8, a tapestry tacked to
strips of wood, which were then affixed to the wall, was not regarded as being part of the
land. The degree of annexation in this case was merely that which was necessary for the
display of the tapestry.

In rare circumstances, something which is not actually fixed to the land but which appears to
form an integral part of it, may be regarded as forming part of the land for legal purposes.
This best example of this is D’Eyncourt v. Gregory 9, in which stone statues, seat and garden
vases were held to be part of the land, even though they were free standing as were certain
tapestries and picture hanging upon the walls. The basis of the decision is that the ornaments
formed an integral part of the architectural design of the house on the property. Thus it
appears that the existence of a master a “master plan” concerning the property may render
items part of the land, even though there is no real annexation. Another illustration was
supplied by Blackburn J in Holland v. Hodgson,19 when he explained that a pile of stones
lying in a builder’s yard would obviously not form part of the land upon which it lay.
However, were the same stones to be constructed into a drystone wall (which used no mortar
and no method of fixing the wall to the ground) on a farm, the wall obviously would form
part of the land of the farm.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAXIM OF QUICQUID PLANTATUR SOLO, SOLO

CEDIT
It is the general rule that fixtures must not be removed (whatever has been affixed to the land,
goes with the land). The maxim quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit however is subject to three
exceptions:

8 Leigh v. Taylor [1902] AC 157.

9 D’Eyncourt v. Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382. 19
Supra.

1
3
 1. TRADE FIXTURES, FOR EXAMPLE, MACHINERY ESSENTIAL TO A FACTORY.

Trade fixtures are those items which have been affixed for the purpose of carrying on
a particular trade. They encompass those items that merchants annex to the premises
to facilitate the storage, handling, and display of their stock such as booths, bars,
display cases and lights. It has long been recognized by the Poole’s Case (1703) 91
ER 32010, that a tenant is entitled to remove fixtures installed during the term of his
lease for the purpose of carrying on his business. For example, in Smith v. City
Petroleum11, it was held that a tenant could remove petrol pumps from the land
because they were trade fixtures and could easily removed since they were only
bolted to the land. However, it was held that the petrol tanks could not be removed
because they have become an integral part of the land and could not easily detached.
Also in Young v. Dalgety Plc,22 a tenant had installed light fittings and a carpet which
had become fixtures by virtue of their attachment to land, but the Court of Appeal
held that they were trade fixtures and removable because they were attached to render
the premises convenient for the tenant’s business use.

2. AGRICULTURAL FIXTURES, FOR EXAMPLE, A GREENHOUSE.

Agricultural fixtures are articles that are annexed for the purpose of farming. It can
also be viewed as trade fixtures. Historically, in the case of Elwes v. Maw 23
established a principle on which a tenant is allowed to remove fixtures annexed by
him for purposes of trade cannot be extended so as to allow him to remove fixtures
annexed for agricultural purposes. However, there are statutes that was established to
allow an agricultural tenant to remove fixtures during the term or otherwise stated.

3. DOMESTIC AND ORNAMENTAL FIXTURES, FOR EXAMPLE, TAPESTRY OR MIRROR

BLINDS.

10 Poole’s Case (1703) 91 ER 320

11 Smith v. City Petroleum [1940] 1 All ER 260.
22
Young v. Dalgety Plc [1987] 1 EGLR 116,22. 23
Elwes v. Maw (1802) 3 East 38, 102 ER 510.

1
4
 Domestic and ornamental fixtures consist of objects that a tenant has affixed to the
land for the purpose of rendering it more convenient. Stoves, shelves, and lighting

equipment are types of domestic fixtures. Ornamental fixtures include curtains,

blinds, and beds fastened to walls. The tenant is allowed to remove any ornament and
domestic fixtures provided that there is no substantial injury to the landlord’s
premises.

Fixtures of these kind are usually attached to rented premises for the tenant's benefit
without any intention of increasing the attraction of the landlord's property. Generally
the parties may enter into an agreement within regard to the character of an item to be
affixed to the land. When no agreement exists between the parties, articles annexed by
the tenant may be detached by the tenant, during the possession of the tenancy,
provided such can be done lacking damaging the premises.

In the determination of leases, it is essential however that the fixture can be removed
without being entirely demolished or losing its essential character or value. This
principle was recognised by the Court of Appeal in Mancetter Development Ltd. v.
Garmanson Ltd.12 where the tenants who had remove the extractor fan had failed to
fill in the holes left in the wall. Dillon L.J. states:

“The analysis of the liability at common law is, in my judgement, that the liability to
make good the damage is a condition of the tenant’s right to remove tenant’s fixtures:
Therefore removal of the fixtures without making good the damage, being in excess
of the tenant’s right of removal, is waste, actionable in tort, just as much as removal
by the tenant of a landlord’s fixture which the tenant has no right to remove is waste.”

At common law, a tenant usually may remove a fixture before the end of the lease
term if the fixture was installed for the purposes of trade, agricultural, ornament, or
domestic use and if it can be removed without damage to the premises. Otherwise the
fixtures become a gift to the landlord.

However, the tenant who fails to make good damage to the land occasioned by the
legitimate removal of fixture will therefore be liable to compensate the landlord for
the damage occurred.

12 Mancetter Development Ltd. v. Garmanson Ltd.

1
5
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 3: Interpretation clause.

CASE LAWS
Holland v. Hodgson, LR7 CPP 328, 335.
Hulme v Bingham, (1943) KB 152.
Botham v TSB Bank PLC (1996), 73 P. CR D 1.
Holland v. Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328.
Mitchell v Cowie (1964) 7 WIR 118.
Teaff v Hewitt (1853) 1 Ohio St. 511.
O’ Brien Loans Limited v. Missick (1977) 1 BLR 40.
Elitestone Ltd v. Morris [1997] 1 W.L.R. 687.
Billing v Pill (1953) 2 All ER 1061.
Leigh v. Taylor [1902] AC 157.
Berkley v. Poulett [1977] 1 EGLR 86.
Leigh v. Taylor [1902] AC 157.
D’Eyncourt v. Gregory (1866) LR 3 Eq 382.
Poole’s Case (1703) 91 ER 320
Smith v. City Petroleum [1940] 1 All ER 260. Young
v. Dalgety Plc [1987] 1 EGLR 116,22.
Elwes v. Maw (1802) 3 East 38, 102 ER 510.
Mancetter Development Ltd. v. Garmanson Ltd.

1
6
1
7