1. The only point raised in this appeal is as to whether a kolhu, i.e an iron sugarcane press, is or is not “immovable property.” The lower appellate Court has held that it is immovable property. On appeal it is argued that it is moveable property. A kolhu, I understand, is not a very large or very heavy iron-mill. This one in particular is valued at Rs. 15.
2. It appears that this kolhu was purchased by the father of the parties and set into position at any rate before 1905, which was the year in which he died. It was then fastened to the ground and was presumably meant to be permanently fastened. It is still in situ and has been used ever since. Under the circumstances it seems to me that the kolhu could not be used effectively until it was fastened to the earth; under the circumstance it must be held to be immovable property. I therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
V.B/R.K
3. Appeal dismissed.