SUBBARAYA MAYYA Vs. LAKKANNA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the plaintiff who sued for damages for seven trees cut and removed by the defendants from the property purchased by him from one Gangadhara Mayya on December 28, 1954. The sale deed, which is Ext. A2, does not except from the sale any tree on the property, and as trees growing on the land must go along with the land on alienation the title to all the trees on the land at the time of his purchase must be deemed to have vested in the plaintiff under his purchase. The 1st defendant, on the strength of a Kaikagada (Hand-note) dated October 10, 1954, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 180/- by the aforesaid Gangadhara Mayya described as the price of seven trees, specified as one teak tree, two jack trees, two tamarind trees, one mango tree and one neerolu tree standing on the property, entered the property with the other defendants on July 12, 1955, and felled the seven trees for which the damages is claimed here.

(2.) There is a sharp dispute between the parties as to the genuineness of Ext. B1, the aforesaid Kaikagada; but in view of the effect of Ext. B1, that I am taking, that question may be overlooked here.

(3.) Ext. B1 is a hand-note acknowledging receipt of Rs. 180/- by Gangadhara Mayya as the price of seven trees, one teak tree, two jack trees, two tamarind trees, one mango tree and one neerolu tree, standing on the suit property and empowering the 1st, defendant to cut and remove the trees whenever he found them necessary without fear of objection from the vendor or his heirs.