JUGRAJSA CHUNILALSA Vs. UMRAO SINGH SIKDARSINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for determination in this appeal is whether persons who have planted trees on land held by them as tenants can claim ownership in them after the termination of their lease. The Plaintiff -Appellants are tenants of the land on which the trees in dispute stand, and it is immaterial for the purposes of this case to consider the nature of the tenancy. It is common ground that the land is Sardeshmukhi, in a Jagir Village, and as such the assessment is payable not to Jagirdar but to the Government. Under the Indore laws, the Ruler was admittedly the overlord of all lands and Jagirdars merely his assignees. The Courts below have apparently overlooked this principle and fallen into the error of regarding a tenant of Sardeshmukhi land as an ordinary tenant in Jagir village; but as X have said above the nature of the tenancy is immaterial in this case and the decision of the rights can and ought to be on axioms of law.

(2.) IT is conceded that the land in which the trees stand was excised from the Jagir and was recorded as Sardeshmukhi, and the Plaintiffs have a patta in the name of Jugraj, the elder member of the family. The Defendants' case is that they and their ancestors were long in occupation of the land as tenants prior to its excision and during that period they had planted the trees. It is a well recognised principle of law that what is fixed to the soil goes with the soil (quicquid plantatur solo solo cedit) and there is eminent Judicial authority for the view that when a tenant plants trees on his holding, the property in such trees attaches, in absence of a contract or custom to the contrary to the land and passes with it; Janki v. Sheodhar, 29 ALL. 211 and Nafar Chandra v. Ram Lal 22 Cal. 742. So too where a tenant had mortgaged trees planted by him on his holding and was thereafter ejected by the landlord, it was held in a suit by the mortgagees that they had no lien on the trees after eviction of the tenants; see also Nurbibi v. Maganlal, 16 Bom. 547 and Deokinandan v. Dhiansingh, 8 ALL. 467 :, 1886 A.W.N. 192. Following this principle, I would hold that on the termination of their tenancy, the Defendants had no right to the trees and they became the property of the Plaintiffs who got the land on a patta from the Government without reservation of the tress. The decree of the lower Court is reversed and the Plaintiffs suit decreed with costs throughout.