Panni Lal vs Med Singh

J.V. Gupta J.—This judgment will also dispose of R.S.A. No. 1477 of 1978 (Med Singh v. Panni Lal, as both these appeals are directed against the same judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers, Gurgaon, dated the 10th March, 1978.

The plaintiff Panni Lal, claiming himself to be the owner of the site in dispute measuring 6083 square feet comprised of Khasra Nos. 1825, 1826, and 1827 sought the relief of possession in respect thereof alleging inter alia that the same had been encroached upon by the defendant, who is owner of the adjoining fields comprised of Khasra Nos. 1822 and 1821. He also pleaded that 17 fruits trees standing in that site in dispute belong to him. In the written statement the defendant pleaded that the land in dispute as well as the fruit trees planted thereon by his uncle some 30 years back belong to him and that the land never remained in the occupation of the plaintiff of his predecessorininterest. Plea was also taken that the suit was barred by time and the defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. The trial Court found that the plaintiff has been proved to be the owner of the land in dispute but not of the trees as the same were planted by the precessorininterest of the defendant. Consequently, the plaintiff''s suit was decreed for possession of the suit land but the defendant was held to be entitled to take away the trees from the suit land for which one month''s time was allowed to remove the trees. Dissatisfied with the same both the parties fields two separate appeals. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed by it. Dissatisfied with the same, both the parties have filed these two appeals. R.S.A. No. 438 of 1978 has been filed by these two appeals. R.S.A.No. 1477 of 1978 has been filed by Med Singh defendant.

The main dispute between the parties in these appeals is whether the trees on the land which have been found to be in the ownership of the plaintiff and were planted by the predecessorininterest of the defendant, belong to the plaintiff or not. In other words, whether the defendant is entitled to remove the trees from the suit land which has been found to be in the ownership of the plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once it is found that the land belongs to the plaintiff then even though the trees were planted by the defendant thereon, the defendant was not entitled to remove the same. According to the learned counsel, once the ownership plaintiff is held on the suit land, the trees belong to him and the defendant could not remove the same. In support of this contention he has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Hakin Hari Ram, etc. v. Sant Ram ect., 1955 P.L.R. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that since the trees were planted by the defendant and he has been enjoying its fruit for the last 30 years, he was entitled to remove the same taking it to be an encroachment on the plaintiff''s land. According to the learned counsel, the discretion in this behalf has been exercised by both the Courts below and the same should not be interfered with in second appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiffappellant. Once it is found that the trees were planted on the land belonging to the plaintiff then the trees belong to the owner and not to the planter. The view taken by the Courts below in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. Such a matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Hakim Hari Ram''s case (super) and it was held that the trees belong to the owner of soil. If a person plants trees on the land not belonging to him then the trees belong to the owner and not to the planter. It was observed therein that:

"It is well known maxim that whatever is affixed to the soil becomes in contemplation of law a part of it and is subjected to the same rights of property as the soil itself. It follows as a corollary that if a person plants a tree in the land of another the owner of the soil becomes owner also of the tree. To put in a slight different language, a standing tree belongs not to the person by whom it was planted, but to the owner of the land from which it draws its support and sustenance."

That being the position, I hold that the defendant was not entitled to remove the trees, as directed by the Courts below. Consequently R.S.A. No. 1477 of 1978 filed on behalf of the defendant is dismissed whereas R.S.A. No 438 of 1978 filed on behalf of the plaintiff is allowed. Consequently, the decrees of the Courts below are modified and the plaintiff''s suit is decreed for possession of the land including the trees thereon. However, their will no order as to costs.