1. The defendant in O.S. No. 46 of 1952 of the court of the District Munsiff of Kasaragod is the appellant before us. The suit was for the recovery of possession of the item of property described in the Schedule to the plaint including the house thereon with mesne profits at Rs. 150/- per year from the date of the plaint till the date of recovery.

2. Both the trial court and the District Judge of south Kanara in the appeal from the judgment of the trial court - A.S.No.153 of 1954-have held that the land belongs to the plaintiff, and that she is entitled to recover the same with mesne profits at Rs.75 per year. There is nothing on record to show that these conclusions are in any way incorrect.

3. The courts below have also come to the conclusion - we think quite correctly - that the house on the property was constructed by the defendant with his own funds. The question for determination is whether he has the right to remove the materials of the house in case the plaintiff is not willing to pay him its value.

4. The trial court held that the defendant is entitled to compensation and fixed it at Rs. 2,561-9-0. The appellate court said that "the defendant is not entitled to ge