In which case the distinction between movable and immovable property was explained by stating if the intention is to cut down the tree and use it as timber, it would be regarded as movable property?

Shanta Bai Vs State of Bombay

The correct answer is Option (2) → Shanta Bai Vs State of Bombay

In Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay, the distinction between movable and immovable property was observed. If the intention is to reap fruits from the trees, then it is regarded as an immovable property. But if the intention is to cut down the tree and use it as timber, it would be regarded as movable property