An interesting and some what important question needs dete­rmination in this appeal. The same is whether a "Gumtee" (a small structure normally having four wooden posts as its support meant for selling articles like betel nut and petty statio­nery and cosmetic articles) is an immoveable property, or moveable ? This question has arisen on these facts. A suit was filed for eviction from such a Gumtee by respondent No. 1 -on the averment that the same belonged to her husband late Jagannath Singh and was let out to the defendants on a monthly rental of Rs. 48/-. Though rent was paid for sometime, but the defendants became defaulter thereafter and the Gumtee was also needed by the plaintiff for her own use and occupation. Among other points urged by the defendants a plea was taken that the Gumtee had been sold by Jagannath Singh to defendant No. 1 on 4.11.69, who in turn sold the same to defendant No. 2 on 20.11.69. The sale was, however, not by registered deed but was evidenced by execution of receipt. As the consideration was a sum of Rs. 800/-, it has been held by the learned District Judge, Now gong that the two deeds in question being Exts. Ka and Kha, are not admissible. Having taken this view the plea that the suit was not maintainable has not been accepted. Though the learned trial court had accepted the documents as genuine, the learned court below doubted the same. 2. If late Jagannath Singh had ceased to be the owner of the premises there can be no denial that his wife, the plaintiff could not have filed the suit for eviction of the defendants as tenants. So the question whether Jagannath Singh had in fact done so or not is relatable to the jurisdiction of the court and as such is examinable even in a proceeding of the present nature which has been treated as a revision in view of the decision of this Court in LPA No. 11 of 1976, which has held that no second appeal lies in such cases. Had it been that the learned District Judge disbelieved execution of Exts. Ka and Kha, that would have definitely been entirely a different matter, but the main point on which the case of the defendants has been rejec­ted is the inadmissibility of Exts. Ka and Kha. Had it been that the learned District Judge disbelieved execution of Exts. Ka and Kha, that would have definitely been entirely a different matter, but the main point on which the case of the defendants has been rejec­ted is the inadmissibility of Exts. Ka and Kha. As to the genuineness what has been stated is only that the same was doubtful because sale to defendant No. 1 was on 4. H. 69 whereas sale by him to defendant No. 2 was on 20.11.69. This cannot raise any doubt. Let it therefore be seen whether any error of law was committed in holding that Exts. Ka and Kha were not admissible. 3. Before this is done, a preliminary point raised by Shri Bora that as this court is seized with the matter in its revisional jurisdiction, the finding of the learned District Judge in this regard cannot be gone into, be disposed of. The learned counsel has referred in this connection to Bholaram vs. Amirchand 1981 (2) SCC 414 , which has dealt with the power of interference in second appeal by a High Court and has pointed out that a finding of fact event if wrong would not entitle the High Court to interfere in the absence of a clear error of law. This case for as no- application. The decision of the Privy Council in Venkatagiri vs. H. R. E. Board, AIR 1949 PC 156 does not also assist the contesting respondent because if the error be of a question relating to jurisdiction of the court, High Court's power of revision can definitely be invoked as stated in this decision itself, which has made abundantly clear in Joychand vs. Kamalaksha, AIR 1949 PC 239. The Supreme Court decision in Works Manager, Central Railways vs. Biswanath, AIR 1970 SC 488 , has held that a finding of fact cannot be interfered in revision. What is being agitated herein is not a question of fact but a point of law as to whether a Gumtee is a moveable or immoveable property. 4. To decide this controversy, let the definition of "immo­veable property" be first noted. As is known it has been defined in the Transfer of Property Act only by stating that it "does not include standing timber, growing crops, or grass?'. 4. To decide this controversy, let the definition of "immo­veable property" be first noted. As is known it has been defined in the Transfer of Property Act only by stating that it "does not include standing timber, growing crops, or grass?'. We may therefore turn to the definition of this expression in the General Clauses Act, whose section 3 (26) states : "immovable property" shall include land, benefit to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth or permanen­tly fastened to anything attached to the earth". The expression "attached to the earth" has been defined in the Transfer of Property Act to mean : "(a) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs; (b) imbedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or (c) attached to what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it is attached". 5. By referring to the fact as found in this case that the two hind legs of the Gumtee were imbedded in the ground, it is urged by Shri Bora that the Gumtee in question has to be regarded as immoveable property. It is contended that it being a structure, the same has to be taken to be an immoveable property as long as it stands on land. This is what was observed in para 15 of Ajit vs. Nagendra, AIR 1960 Cal. 484 . By referring Kanhiyalal vs. Satyanarayan AIR 1965 All. 496 , Shri Bora submits that the Gumtee is an immoveable property as it is attached to the earth. What was stated in para 5 of this deci­sion is that a building is a thing attached to the earth and is by itself an immoveable property. 6. These are some stray observations only. A reference to the decisions cited by Shri Sarma would however show that the mere fact that a certain thing is attached or annexed to the land imbedded in the land would not make it an immoveable property. The two tests to be applied in this regard are-(1) the degree or mode of annexation, and (2) the object of annexation. 7. This question had come up before the courts while deciding whether machineries imbedded in the earth or attached to earth are immoveable properties or not. The two tests to be applied in this regard are-(1) the degree or mode of annexation, and (2) the object of annexation. 7. This question had come up before the courts while deciding whether machineries imbedded in the earth or attached to earth are immoveable properties or not. A Division Bench of Nagpur High Court went into this question in J- H. Subhiah vs. Govindrao, AIR 1953 Nag. 224, and had to determine as to whether a timber saw mill was immoveable property or not. While doing so, the leading case of Holland vs. Hodgson 1872 LR 7 CP 328, was referred to which mentioned about the two tests specified above. The Bench stated in para 9 that of the two tests, the object of annexation is more important. How does the same make a difference would be amply borne out by what was stated by Blackburn. J., in the above case. To quote : ".... An article may be very firmly fixed to the land, and yet the circumstances may be such as to show that it was never intended to be part of the land, and then it does not become part of the land. The anchor of a large ship must be very firmly fixed in the ground in order to bear the strain of the cable, yet no one could suppose that it became part of the land, even though it should chance that the ship-owner was also the owner of the fee of the spot where the anchor was dropped. An anchor similarly fixed in the soil for the purpose of bearing the strain of the of a suspension bridge would be part of the land." Applying this test to the facts, the Bench held that as the land on which the machinery was erected by A but belonged to B, it must be assumed that the owner of the machinery did not intend the same to form part and parcel of the immoveable property to which it was attached. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court held in Board of Revenue vs. K. Venkatas-wamy, AIR 1955 Madras 620, that the equipments of touring cinema were in the very nature of things not immoveable property as they were described as "collapsible and capable of being removed". A Full Bench of the Madras High Court held in Board of Revenue vs. K. Venkatas-wamy, AIR 1955 Madras 620, that the equipments of touring cinema were in the very nature of things not immoveable property as they were described as "collapsible and capable of being removed". So, though the machineries were imbedded in the earth, it was held that it was so done only temporarily and not permanently, and so they were held to be moveable property. It may be stated at this stage that according to the defendants, the Gunitee could be removed from place to place. 8. Similar views were expressed in Jnan Chand vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1960 Cal. 331 , and Perumal vs. Ramaswami, AIR 1969 Madras 346. In the Calcutta decision it was stated that if the mode of attachment is imbedding in the earth as in the case of walls or buildings, or if the object of attachment is for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of the land to which it is attached, then the property will be immoveable property, but not otherwise. In the Madras case it was observed that the degree, manner, extent and strength of attachment of the chattel to the earth or building are the main features to be taken into consideration in this regard. It was further observed that if a moveable property has to be fixed or attached to the earth for its beneficial use or enjoyment it could not be regarded as immoveable property for that reason. 9. Applying these tests to a Gumtee of the type with which we are concerned, it cannot be regarded as immoveable because (1) the extent of attachment to the earth is not of the type as is in the case of walls. As put by the learned District Judge, the two hind legs were fixed to the ground so that the Gumtee could withstand the ravages of wind and rain. (The front legs were found resting on bricks ) (2) This would show that the object of attachment was the more beneficial enjoy­ment of the Gumtee and not of the land. (3) The Gumtee could be removed from place to place. As such, I would hold that the Gumtee could not be regarded as immoveable property. The fact that it was described as "Gumtee house" by both the parties is not decisive. (3) The Gumtee could be removed from place to place. As such, I would hold that the Gumtee could not be regarded as immoveable property. The fact that it was described as "Gumtee house" by both the parties is not decisive. Neither is the definition of building, or house or hut, in some other statutes, to wit, the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, The Assam Urban Areas Non-agricultural Tenancy Act, or the Assam Municipal Act, to which my atten­tion is invited by Shri Bora. It is well-known that every statute has its own definition to serve the purpose for which the statute is enacted. 10. This being the position and the genuineness of Exts. Ka and Kha being not in serious dispute, it has to be held that the plaintiff had ceased to be the owner of the Gumtee because of which she could not have filed the suit in question for eviction of the defendants from the Gumtee. The suit as filed was therefore not maintainable and the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to decree the suit for eviction. 11. The result is that the petition succeeds and the impug­ned judgment and decree of the learned District Judge are set aside. The suit stands dismissed.