(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Indian Union for a declaration that the trees standing on the ground of Bungalow 14 (Survey No. 104) Ambala Cantonment are the absolute property of the Government and claimed a decree for Rs. 96/- as the price of two trees cut by defendant Hari Kishan Dass. The defendant in spite of this suit claimed 'inter alia' that he was the absolute owner of the trees standing on this ground. The trial Court decreed the suit and the defendant's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge Ambala. The defendant has filed this second appeal to this Court.
(2.) The facts material for the decision of this appeal are no longer in dispute. The land in suit is situated in Ambala Cantonment. It appears that on 12-9-1836 in supersession of previous orders an "Order No. 179" of the Governor General in Council was notified dealing with the applications to build on unoccupied lands in Cantonments It is common ground that the site as distinct from superstructure belongs to the Government and it is governed by this 1836 Order. The defendant's case is that his grandfather had purchased this bungalow with the ground in 1887-88 subject to the terms of this Order and admits that he had cut two of the trees from the ground and removed them. The allegations in the plaint by the Indian Union are that the two trees were cut and removed on or about 3010- 1947. The defendant's case is that these trees were not in existence at the time when the grant was made under 1836 Order. Clause 6 of this Order is in these terms:
(3.) It is contended for the appellant that under paras 2 and 4 of this clause trees standing on the land at the time of the grant or of subsequent growth vested in the grantee and therefore the defendant had full right to cut the trees and remove them. The only question that required decision in this case is whether the Indian Union or the defendant is entitled to the trees standing on the ground granted by the former to the latter.