Explanation:

Such trees as can be regarded as standing timber at the date of the document, both because of their size and girth and also because of the intention to fell at an early date, would be moveable property for the purposes of the Transfer of Property and Registration Acts, the remaining trees that are also covered by the grant will be Immovable property. Under section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, it would be regarded as “immovable property” because it is a benefit that arises out of the land and also because trees are attached to the earth. On the other hand, the Transfer of Property Act says in section 3 that standing timber is not Immovable property for the purposes of that Act and so does section 2(6) of the Registration Act. The question is which of these two definitions is to prevail. Now it will be observed that “trees” are regarded as Immovable property because they are attached to or rooted in the earth. Section 2(6) of the Registration Act expressly says so and, though the Transfer of Property Act does not define Immovable property beyond saying that it does not include “standing timber, growing crops or grass”, trees attached to earth (except standing timber) are immovable property, even under the Transfer of Property Act, because of section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act. It is to be noted that the exclusion is only of “standing timber” and not of “timber trees”. In the absence of a special definition, the general definition must prevail. Therefore, trees (except standing timber) are Immovable property. Shantabai vs. State of Bombay and Ors.