GHASI RAM Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MORE than fifty ago a Division Bench of this Court comprising of the then Chief Justice A.N. Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Dulat has laid down a proposition of law which holds the field even today when this Court is busy in celebrating its Golden Jubliee. The Division Bench in the case of Hakim Hari Ram v. Santa Ram, 1955 PLR 6, after making detailed reference to the judgments of the Privy Council has authoritatively laid down :

(2.) THE afore-mentioned question of law has again arisen in this appeal filed by defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-respondent, who is owner of the land, is entitled to the trees planted on that land. Therefore, his suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-appellant has been decreed in his favour by both the Courts below. The stand taken by the defendant-appellant before the Courts below is that he was a tenant on the suit land and the "poplar", "safeda", "shisham" trees etc. were planted by him on the suit land and were also nourished by him. On the aforementioned basis, the right to cut and remove those trees from the suit land has also been asserted.

(3.) MR . Jaivir Yadav, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has argued that both the Courts below have fallen in grave error of law by accepting that all the appurtenants concerning the land would go to the owner and not to the tenant. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Rasool and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and another, AIR 1983 SC 1188 and argued that the Supreme Court has allowed, the tenant, the cutting of the standing trees from the land recognising his right on the basis that he is a planter.