RAM LAL Vs. MAHURI AND A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for permanent injunction restraining interference with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of certain trees, as also possession over certain lands. The trial court decreed that suit in part and granted a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of certain Mahua and Neem trees, and bamboo clumps. The first appeal of the defendant against that decree was unsuccessful. The only point pressed by Shri N. P. Misra in support of the appeal is that the court below committed an error of law in decreeing the suit for injunction in respect of the trees although it found that the plaintiff had been unable to establish the identity of the land on which the trees were alleged to be situate, as also the story relating to the plantation of the trees. It was urged that although under the U. P. Tenancy Act, of 1939, mere user of trees might have given a party rights in respect of the trees, under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petition is that a person must have planted the trees in order to be entitled to right in respect thereof under Section 9. The lower appellate court has, on consideration of the evidence, came to the finding that the plaintiff had proved his title of possession, in respect of the tress in suit and bamboo clump, although the plaintiff had not been able to prove that the trees and bamboo clump in suit, lay in plot no. 648 as the plaintiff could not get any advantage of the entry.........1309 F, in favour of Bihari as it appeared from the oral evidence that the trees had been planted after 1309 Fasli. Now, this finding as to the plaintiffs' title and possession over the trees is a finding of fact. The fact that a person had been in possession and enjoying the fruits of the trees as owner as evidence of the fact that the tree belongs to him. Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindari and Abolition Act does not say that only trees planted by a person would be deemed to be settled with that person. It says that the "trees in abadi.........belonging to or held by an intermediary or tenant or other person.........shall continue to belong to or be held by such intermediary, tenant or person as the case may be"......... Section 9 does not anywhere require that a tree must be planted by a person before he could claim its benefit in respect thereof. It is sufficient if the tree belongs to him. Long user of a tree as owner by a person is good evidence of the trees belonging to that person. The learned counsel has been unable to show that the finding of the lower appellate court on the point as to the user and possession of the trees by the plaintiff-respondent, is vitiated by any error of law. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.