Judgment The Second Appeal and the Memorandum of Cross-objections relate to the decree for compensation for improvements directed to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. He is a purchaser of the tenant’s right under Exhibit B-2 dated 25th March, 1947, from the 1st defendant. The suit was for ejectment against defendants 1 to 3, the 1st defendant being the principal tenant, the 2nd defendant being his under-lessee and the 3rd defendant being the purchaser of the 1st defendant’s rights. Defendants 1 and 3 filed a joint written statement claiming a sum of Rs. 1,200 as the value of the improvements effected on the land by putting up buildings and making other improvements. The trial Court fixed the compensation at Rs. 756 and directed the plaintiff to pay the 1st defendant the said amount of compensation. In appeal, the 3rd defendant, the present appellant, filed a memorandum of cross-objections claiming the value of the improvements himself as he had purchased under Exhibit B-2 the rights of the 1st defendant as chalgeni tenant as also the right to claim the value of the improvements from the landlord the plaintiff. His objection was not countenanced on the ground that the claim for improvements was in the nature of an inchoate right. The learned appellate Judge felt it doubtful if it could be the subiect-matter of a transfer and held that the proper remedy of the 3rd defendant was to proceed against the 1st defendant for the recovery of the value of the improvements on the strength of the sale deed Exhibit B-2 in his favour. The 1st defendant appearing by counsel now contends that the 3rd defendant would not be entitled to the value of the improvements decreed in the present suit as the property that was sold to him was different from the suit property. Mr. Vittal Rao proceeded to refer to some differences in the description of the property in Exhibit B-2 and the schedule to the decree which is a copy of the schedule to the plaint. The question of identitv of the properties was never in dispute and it is not open to the 1st defendant to raise that question. It is not necessary to go into that question in the Second Appeal as the point has never been raised at any time in the Courts below. The question of identitv of the properties was never in dispute and it is not open to the 1st defendant to raise that question. It is not necessary to go into that question in the Second Appeal as the point has never been raised at any time in the Courts below. As regards the view taken by the learned appellate Judge that it is an incohate right and cannot be the subject-matter of a transfer, I am unable to agree for the reason that the right, which the 3rd defendant claims by virtue of the transfer in his favour under Exhibit B-2 of the leasehold rights possessed by the 1st defendant as chalgeni tenant and also of the value of the buildings put up by the 1st defendant on the land for which consideration must be presumed to have passed from 3rd defendant to the 1st defendant, could not be considered to be in the nature of a mere claim or inchoate right just as a claim for damages for tort. The right which the 1st defendant possessed as chalgeni tenant was a right to claim the value of the improvements of the property by reason of his putting up additional buildings which are attached to the land and which in turn have been conveyed to the 3rd defendant. Such a right is a right annexed to the ownership of the land and the ownership of the buildings put up by the 1st defendant. Such a right which is annexed to immovable property is transferable and the 3rd defendant has therefore acquired a right to claim the value of the improvements by virtue of Exhibit B-2. Even otherwise on the averments in the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 3 it was not open to the 1st defendant to deny the right of the 3rd defendant to claim whatever amount which the 1st defendant might be entitled to get as the value of the improvements from the plaintiff as chalgeni tenant. The result is the appeal is allowed with costs throughout as against the 2nd respondent. The Memorandum of Cross-objections is by the plaintiff who contests the correctness of the view taken by the lower Courts that the lessee of the suit property was entitled to the value of the improvements. The result is the appeal is allowed with costs throughout as against the 2nd respondent. The Memorandum of Cross-objections is by the plaintiff who contests the correctness of the view taken by the lower Courts that the lessee of the suit property was entitled to the value of the improvements. There was no whisper of any objection to the 1st defendant being entitled to improvements in the trial Court. But in appeal a contention was raised that the customary law which applies to tenants in the Malabar whereby tenants of agricultural lands are entitled to the value of improvements is not applicable to the suit property which is situate in South Kanara District. But the learned Judge after referring to the decision in Venkataramanayya v. Srinivasa Rao1and Ramappa v. Abdulla Beary2, found that from the earliest times it has been held that chalgeni tenants from South Kanara are entitled to the value of the improvements. An attempt was made to contest the position that the 1st defendant was not a chalgeni tenant and that the land which was leased was not an agricultural land but was a building site. The land has been described as bagayat which means ‘garden land ‘and therefore undoubtedly agricultural and not, in any event, a building site. There is no point in this objection and the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly repelled the contention of the plaintiff. The Memorandum of Cross-objections is dismissed with costs (one set). No leave. K.C.----- Appeal allowed and Cross-objections dismissed.