DEFINITION OF LAND

1. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
TOPIC 2: DEFINITION OF LAND & LAW OF FIXTURES
CHECKLIST
DEFINISI TANAH
SEKSYEN 5 KANUN TANAH NEGARA 1965
LEKAPAN & CATEL
KONSEP LEKAPAN & CATEL
PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG INGGERIS
KES MALAYSIA
UJIAN UNTUK MENENTUKAN LEKAPAN DAN CATEL
A. DARJAH/TAHAP PELEKAPAN (DEGREE OF ANNEXATION)
B. TUJUAN PELEKAPAN (PURPOSE/OBJECT OF ANNEXATION)
KECUALIAN KEPADA UNDANG-UNDANG LEKAPAN
A. ADAT
B. COMMON LAW – PENYEWA & PENERIMA PAJAKAN

2. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
1
DEFINISI TANAH
SEKSYEN 5 KANUN TANAH NEGARA 19651
“Tanah” termasuklah:-
5(a) - Muka bumi
- Semua benda yang menjadikan muka bumi
5(b) - Tanah bumi di bawah muka bumi
- Semua benda yang terkandung di dalamnya
5(c) - Semua tumbuh-tumbuhan dan lain-lain keluaran semula jadi
- Sama ada perlukan penggunaan tenaga berkala terhadap pengeluarannya atau
tidak
- Sama ada di atas atau di bawah bumi
5(d) - Semua benda yang terlekat pada tanah bumi
- Atau dilekatkan selama-lamanya pada apa-apa benda yang terlekat pada tanah
bumi
- Sama ada di atas atau bawah muka bumi
5(e) - Tanah yang diliputi air
KAMUS
“The solid part of the earth’s surface, as distinguished from the sea or water or from the air”2
1
Akta 56
2
Kamus Inggeris Oxford

3. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
2
LEKAPAN & CATEL
KONSEP LEKAPAN & CATEL
 Perlu kenal pasti apa itu lekapan  untuk menentukan pemilikan tanah
 Tanah  semua yang terlekat kepadanya
 Jika sesuatu itu telah dikenal pasti sebagai lekapan  akan termasuk dalam pemilikan
(ownership)  tuan punya tanah akan turut menikmati lekapan itu
LEKAPAN & CATEL
LEKAPAN CATEL
KEKAL TAK KEKALKEKAL & JADI
SEBAHAGIAN
DARIPADA
TANAH TERSEBUTSEBABKAN
KEROSAKAN YANG
TERUK JIKA
DIALIHKAN
BOLEH DICABUT
TANPA SEBABKAN
KESAN YANG
TERUKBARANG
PERIBADI, BUKAN
SEBAHAGIAN
DARIPADA
TANAH, TIDAK
KEKAL LEKAT
KEPADA TANAH &
BANGUNAN

4. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
3
PRINSIP UNDANG-UNDANG INGGERIS
 Quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit
 Whatever attached to land becomes part of the land
(apa yang terlekat pada tanah menjadi sebahagian daripada tanah)
Kes: Minshall v Lloyd (1837)3
- A leased a colliery to B with the right of putting a steam engine
- B erected several steam engines  affixed to the soil in the ordinary way
- Default in payment happened  the engines were seized
Held - per Parke B:
The engines have been affixed in a substantial manner to the land  Everything that is
substantially & permanently affixed to the soil is in law a fixture
KES MALAYSIA
 S.5(d) KTN hanya menyebut tentang aspek fizikal sesuatu lekapan  tiada huraian sama
ada sesuatu objek itu adalah lekapan atau tidak
 Terdapat lacunae  S.3 Akta Undang-undang Sivil membenarkan pemakaian prinsip
perundangan Inggeris berkenaan lekapan
 Para hakim telah merujuk kepada keputusan kes-kes Inggeris tentang isu lekapan
 Kes Goh Chong Hin & Anor v The Consolidated Malay Rubber Estates Ltd. telah menjadi
autoriti kepada pemakaian prinsip perundangan Inggeris berkenaan lekapan di Malaysia
3
15 ER 834

5. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
4
UJIAN UNTUK MENENTUKAN LEKAPAN DAN CATEL
 Penting untuk tentukan sama ada sesuatu objek itu adalah lekapan atau catel  untuk
mengetahui sama ada objek tersebut kekal sebagai catel atau telah menjadi lekapan
 Jordan CJ dalam kes Australian Provincial Assurance Co Ltd. v Coroneo4 telah membuat
perbezaan antara lekapan dan catel melalui satu ujian:-
- Sesuatu objek itu adalah lekapan jika
a. Is fixed to the land by any means other than its own weight
b. It has been fixed with the intention that it shall remain in position permanently
whether for an indefinite/subtantial period OR for temporary purpose
- Ujian sama ada sesuatu objek itu adalah lekapan atau catel dengan melihat kepada darjah
pelekapan (degree of annexation) dan tujuan pelekapan (object of annexation) telah
digunakan dalam kes Holland v Hodgson
Kes: Holland v Hodgson (1872)5
- The owner in fee of a worsted mill, at which he carried on the business of a worsted
spinner and stuff manufacturer, mortgaged it to the plaintiffs.
- By a deed of arrangement under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, subsequently executed, the
mortgagor assigned all his property to the defendants as trustees for the benefit of his
creditors.
- Under this latter deed the defendants seized certain looms which were in the mill that
was mortgaged.
- These looms were attached to the stone floors of the rooms of the mill by means of nails
driven through holes in the feet of the looms, in some cases into beams which had been
built into the stone, and in other cases into plugs of wood driven into holes drilled in the
stone for the purpose.
- It was necessary that the looms should be so attached for the purpose of steadying them
and keeping them in a true direction, perpendicular to the line of the shafting, by means
of which the steam power was applied to them.
4
(1938) 38 SR (NSW) 700
5
LR 7 CP 328

6. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
5
- It was impossible to remove the looms without drawing the nails; but this could be done
easily and without any serious damage to the flooring.
Held: The looms passed by the mortgage of the mill as part of the realty
Blackburn J: Perhaps the true rule is, 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 shew that they were intended to be part of the land, the onus of shewing
that they were so intended lying on those who assert that they have ceased to be chattels,
and that, on the contrary, an article which is affixed to the land even slightly is to be
considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are such as to shew that it was
intended all along to continue a chattel, the onus lying on those who contend that it is a
chattel.
A. DARJAH PELEKAPAN (DEGREE OF ANNEXATION)
 Turut dikenali sebagai Adaptation Test atau Damage Test
 Ujian darjah perlekapan adalah ujian objektif  hasil ujian ini adalah rebuttable
presumption
 Seseorang yang menyatakan bahawa lekapan tersebut adalah catel mestilah
membuktikannya
 Prinsip am: Lekapan – catel yang dilekatkan pada tanah atau bangunan secara prima facie
menjadi sebahagian daripada tanah atau bangunan itu
 Persoalan fakta dalam pemakaian ujian ini:
 Sama ada catel boleh dikeluarkan dengan mudah tanpa menyebabkan kerosakan
kepada tanah atau premis
 Kerosakan: boleh jadi conceptual damage/physical damage
 Jika objek tidak boleh dikeluarkan atau menyebabkan kerosakan kepada tanah jika
dikeluarkan  objek tersebut ialah sebahagian daripada tanah  lekapan
 Jika objek melekap kepada tanah disebabkan oleh beratnya  objek tersebut bukan
sebahagian daripada tanah  catel
 In certain case, although an item could be removed easily without affecting the
soil/causing any apparent damage  the object into which it was affixed would cease to
perform the purpose it was made for

7. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
6
B. TUJUAN PELEKAPAN (OBJECT/PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION)
 Untuk tentukan sama ada catel yang dilekatkan di sesuatu tempat itu:-
- Memudahkan seseorang untuk menggunakan catel tersebut
atau
- Untuk kemudahan menggunakan tanah/bangunan
 Apa yang penting ialah bukan sedalam mana objek itu telah dilekapkan kepada tanah
tetapi kenapa ia dilekatkan  jika tujuan objek itu dilekatkan adalah untuk kemudahan
menggunakan tanah/bangunan (better enjoyment of the land)  Lekapan
Kes: Reid v Smith (1906)6
- Smith was lessee of a residential property under a long-term lease.
- A condition of the lease required the original tenant (who later assigned the lease to
Smith) to construct a house on the land.
- Smith later extended the original house and added another. On the expiry of the lease
term Smith proposed to remove the houses, on the grounds that, because they were old
style “Queenslanders”, they were not fixed to the land and so were chattels that he was
entitled to remove.
Held: The High Court had no difficulty in deciding that the houses were fixtures, even though
they were not “attached” to the land at all but rather remained in position solely as a result
of gravity.
Kes: Socfin Co Ltd v Chairman Klang Town Council (1964)7
- The respondent in determining the annual value of the appellant's holdings for rating took
into account the bulk storage tanks standing thereon.
- The storage tanks were used for storing palm oil and they were vertical cylinders resting
on pre-cast concrete pillars which stood freely on a reinforced concrete platform
foundation.
6
3 CLR 656
7
1 MLJ 325

8. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
7
- The tanks themselves consisted of pre-cast bottom, side and roof steel plates which were
assembled and riveted on site to form the bulk storage tanks.
- The platform foundation rested on prepared ground.
- The appellant's contended that the tanks were not rateable since they were neither "land"
nor "building'.
Held:
1. The storage tanks were buildings, being structures connected with platforms and pillars
and were accordingly rateable;
2. The storage tanks were annexed to the land for its better use and enjoyment and formed
part of it and accordingly rateable;
3. The storage tanks enhanced the value of the holdings on which they stood and as they
were not machinery used for industrial purposes
Kes: Shell Co. Ltd v Commissioner of the Federal Capital of Kuala Lumpur [1964]8
- The appellants are the owners of holdings under which are constructed tanks for the
storage of petrol.
- The tanks are buried two feet below ground level and are turfed over or covered with
concrete or macadam.
- To remove them, the turf, concrete or tarmacadam has to be taken up, the earth
excavated, the concrete manhole boxes removed, all pipe connections unbolted and the
tank with its concrete sinker weights then raised with blocks and tackle.
- The respondent, in determining the annual value of the holdings, included the value
attributable to the underground storage tanks.
- On appeal, the appellants contended that the tanks did not fall within the definition of
'building' and as such could not be or form part of 'a holding' and therefore not rateable.
- The respondent contended that the tanks had become part of the land as fixtures and as
such was within the definition of 'holding' and therefore rateable.
8
1 MLJ 302

9. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
8
Held: The underground tanks are land within the definition of 'land' in the Land Code and as
land they are rateable
KECUALIAN KEPADA UNDANG-UNDANG LEKAPAN
A. ADAT
B. COMMON LAW – PENYEWA & PENERIMA PAJAKAN
A. ADAT
Rumah kampung Melayu yang dibina di atas tiang-tiang dan tidak ditanam di dalam tanah 
harta boleh alih  bukan lekapan
Kes:
Re Thambi Ma’amin (1904)9
Kiah bt Hanapiah v Som bt Hanapiah (1953)10
B. COMMON LAW – PENYEWA DAN PENERIMA PAJAKAN
 Objek yang dilekatkan untuk tujuan dagangan pada tanah walaupun seakan-akan kekal
tetapi masih dibenarkan untuk dikeluarkan daripada premis jika dilekatkan oleh penyewa
 dengan syarat ianya dikeluarkan setelah tempoh sewa tamat & dalam tempoh yang
munasabah
 In case of a charge, fixtures will be passed to the chargee even if they were affixed to the
land after the charge transaction  the objects are not part of the land
Kes:
Wiggins Teape (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Bahagia Trading Sdn Bhd & Ors [1980]11
9
Innes 285
10
MLJ 82
11
2 MLJ 45

10. INSYIRAH MOHAMAD NOH LAND LAW I
9
MBf Finance Bhd v Global Pacific Textiles Industries Sdn Bhd (In receivership) & Anor
[1993]12
Sungei Way Leasing Sdn Bhd v Lian Seng Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors (Bank Bumiputra
Malaysia Bhd & Anor, Interveners) [1989]13
*CONCLUSION
Fixtures
A. Degree of annexation
- Two presumptions:
§ if a chattel is attached to the land other than by its own weight then prima facie it’s
a fixture
§ if a chattel is only attached by its own weight, then it is not a fixture, even if it has
become embedded in the soil
B. Purpose of annexation
- Two aspects:
§ if the intention of annexation is the better use and enjoyment of the land, the item
is more likely to be a fixture
§ if the intention was the better use and enjoyment of the item itself, the item is more
likely to be a chattel
12
4 CLJ 379
13
2 MLJ 123