The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of property rights and compensation in the context of ownership disputes, particularly in cases involving the construction of buildings on another's land.

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 get the value of the house", and;

"Nor is there any equity which justifies his being allowed to dismantle the house and take away the materials."

5. The defendant married the plaintiff sometime in 1922. He divorced her in 1951, some 12 months prior to the date of the suit. The house was constructed soon after the marriage, and was their matrimonial home for over 28 years. There can be no doubt that the construction was effected with the consent of the plaintiff.

6. The right to compensation or to remove the materials is an attribute of ownership. As to whom the house should belong was not the subject of any agreement either prior to its construction or at any time thereafter. The question of ownership has hence to be resolved on the basis of the general law applicable to the subject.

7. Quid quid plantatur solo, solo cedit - whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil - is a rule of considerable antiquity and if it applies, the plaintiff will have to be considered as the owner of the house and the defendant's claim must fail. Under the maxim "whatever is affixed to the soil becomes, in contemplation of law, a part of it and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself". (Broom's Legal Maxims, Tenth Edition, Page 262).

8. The maxim, however, has to be considered as inapplicable to this country. As stated in 1953 KLT. 599:

"What is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil' is not a maxim of general jurisprudence and there is the authority of the Privy Council - AIR. 1929 P. C. 163 - to hold that it does not represent the law of India."

9. In VI Weekly-Reporter 228 (F. B ) Sir Barnes Peacock said:

"We have not been able to find in the laws or customs of this country any traces or the existence of an absolute rule of law that whatever is affixed or built on the soil becomes a part of it, and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself."

The Privy Council cited the statement with approval in AIR. 1927 P. C. 135 and added that it "seems to have been accepted for many years as a correct pronouncement".

10. In VI Weekly Reporter 223 (F.B ) Sir Barnes Peacock also said:

"We think it clear that, according to the usages and customs of this country, buildings and other such improvements made on the land do not, by the mere accident of their attachment to the soil, become the property of the owner of the soil; and we think it should be laid down as a general rule that, if he who makes the improvement is not a mere trespasser, but is in possession under any bonafide title

or claim of title, he is entitled either to remove the materials, restoring the land to the state in which it was before the improvement was made, or to obtain compensation for the value of the building if it is allowed to remain for the benefit of the owner of the s