The term “immovable” property is defined in the Transfer of Property Act, General Clauses Act and the other enactment, but for purposes of Article 132 (old) Limitation Act, it has been observed by Sargeant, C.J., in 5 Bom 330 that “in order to property being immovable it must be held in perpetuity and the fund out of which it is to be paid must also be permanent or the enjoyment must be hereditary and the liability to make the payment virtue tenure, i.e., by reason of holding certain land or being member of a certain class”.
In Bombay as far as Hindus are concerned it has been held to include everything which is understood by Hindus as such, e.g., Village Joshi Haks are immovable. [Collector of Thana v. Hari Sitaram, 6 Bom 546]. A right to ferry is [Krishna v. Akilanda, 13 mad 54]. A right to officiate as priest at funeral ceremonies is. [Raghu v. Kasy, 20 Cal 73]. Vatan office of a village accountant is not. [Vencat v. Surya, 2 Mad 683]. Palkhi Hak payable to a desai out of the revenues of the village is not because it cannot be enforced prior or the claim of the Government. [Government of Bombay v. Kalianrai, 14 MIA 563]. Nor is a grant to a foreign temple an immovable. [Government of Bombay v. Girdharlaiji, 9 Bom HCR 228]. But standing crops are. [Pandah v. Janadi, 4 Cal 665].
[Article 62, Limitation Act, 1963].