Judgment :- 1. The questions referred to us at the instance of the assessee for the two years 1965 66 and 1966-67 read as follows: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the profits on the sale of cooly lines situated on agricultural lands are liable to be charged to Income tax under S.45 of the Income tax Act? Does the exemption of 'agricultural land' from the definition of capital assets in S.2 (14) (iii) take in buildings situated on agricultural land in view of the maxim that "whatever is attached to soil becomes part of it,"? 1. From the assessment orders for the two years Annexure A and Annexure A (1) it is seen that the questions relate to the addition of sum of Rs. 12658/- as capital gains on sale of buildings for the earlier year, and the sum of Rs. 15829/- for the second year. From the statement of the case it is seen that for the sale of 'cooly lines' it had received a sum of Rs. 30,000/-for the year 1965 66 and a sum of Rs. 24,500/-forthe year 1966-67. The questions referred to us also proceed on the basis that there have been sales of estates and 'cooly lines' separately. So there is no scope for the argument for the first time raised before us by counsel that there was only a sale of an estate and that being the real transaction the consideration for such sale should not be bifurcated in an artificial manner so as to arrive at some figure which formed a part of the consideration as that applicable to the sale of a part of the property that was sold In such cases whether there can be said to be a sale of agricultural land or what is more important whether there was a transfer of a capital asset does not arise for consideration in this case. Now we shall read the relevant part of S.2 (14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. "2 (14) 'capital asset' means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include (iii) agricultural land in India;" 3. Now we shall read the relevant part of S.2 (14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. "2 (14) 'capital asset' means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include (iii) agricultural land in India;" 3. Counsel on behalf of the assessee contended that 'cooly lines are structures erected for the housing of agricultural labourers who were working on agricultural land for the purpose of producing agricultural income and that it formed an intimate part of the agricultural land which formed the large bulk of the property transferred. He further urged that the 'cooly lines' being atta-ched to agricultural lands, 'cooly lines' themselves were agricultural lands and therefore fell within exemption (iii) to the definition 'capital asset in S.2(14) which we have read. The question is whether it is possible to say that the 'cooly lines' are agricultural lands. It was contended that these 'cooly lines' were agricultural lands on the basis that the principle that what is attached to me land belongs to the land must not only be applied but the character of the property attached to the land must be taken to be the same as that of the land to which it is attached. This argument presses for acceptance two principles; one that what is attached to the land belongs to the land, and the other that the character of the thing attached to the land will be the same as the character of the land. Both these propositions we think, try to extend the law of India. The proposition is based on the well-known Latin Maxim (inaedificatur solo solo credit) in Chellappan Nadar v. Krishnan Nair (1963 KLT. 750). The above principle of English Law is not applicable to India and it has long been so established, bo said the Privy Council in the decision in Vallabdas v. Development Officer, Bendra (AIR 1929 PC 163) This court followed the decision of the Privy Council m State v Mahadeva Iyer Venkitasubramania Iyer (1953 KLT. 599) and the Supreme Court also approved the decision of the Privy Council, in the decision in Dr. K. A. Dhairyawan and others v. J. R. Thakur and others (AIR. 1958 SC. 789) and further this court again in 1963 KLT. 750 reiterated the position. 599) and the Supreme Court also approved the decision of the Privy Council, in the decision in Dr. K. A. Dhairyawan and others v. J. R. Thakur and others (AIR. 1958 SC. 789) and further this court again in 1963 KLT. 750 reiterated the position. It appears to us therefore impossible to contend that what is attached to the land belongs to the land. It is even more difficult to accept the contention that the nature of the thing attached to the land must be the same as the nature of the land to which it is attached. No decision has been quoted before us which supports this submission. 4. We have therefore to answer the two questions referred to us against the assessee and in favour of the department. Our answer to the first question is in the affirmative and that to the second is in the negative. 5. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. 6. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by sub-s (1) of S.260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.