2001 PLP 777 (CLC)

2. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of parties oral as well as documentary decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree, dated 4‑5‑1989 in the following terms:‑

"In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of plaintiffs is decreed to the extent that they are owners of land measuring 44 Kanals and 60 Marlas situated in Khata No.53/49, Khatuni Nos. 113 and

114. To the extent of trees on the land, their suit is dismissed with no order as to costs." Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and decree the respondents/plaintiffs filed appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, A Mianwali vide judgment, and decree, dated 13‑10‑1999. Hence this civil revision.

3. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the learned Appellate Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in reversing the findings of learned Trial Court recorded on Issues Nos.6 and

7. He further contends that the documentary evidence in regard to plantation of trees by the Canal Department stands unrebutted, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Appellate Court to upset the findings of the trial Court in this regard.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record with his assistance.

5. The learned counsel at the very outset on Court's question frankly admitted about the ownership of the respondents on the disputed land, but argued that they have no concern with the trees standing on it as they were planted by Forest Department. In an identical case Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Deputy Commissioner,. Bannu and 2 others v. Muhammad Khan alias Aan 1990 CLC 1898 it was held as under:‑‑ "In the ordinary course of nature whatever grows in.the land is presumed to be belonging to the owners of the land and a trespasser cannot be held entitled to it in the absence of any positive proof. No substantial effort and labour is required in the growth of ' Sheesham' trees particularly, when these are standing close to the canal. The plaintiff/respondent being owner of the land is legally entitled to the trees as well and the judgment and decree of the learned lower two forums do not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional error on this count too."

6. While deciding Issue No.6, the learned trial Court specifically recorded findings that‑‑ "the disputed property is owned by the plaintiffs/respondents. In rebuttal the defendant has not produced any evidence to prove their ownership regarding disputed land. The defendants in para. 1 of the written statement have shown their ignorance about ownership of the disputed land. Pleadings in para. No. l of the written statement are evasive in nature and as such it is presumed that the plaintiffs are owners of the disputed property." After recording this finding ` by the learned trial Court, in regard to ownership of the trees which was not denied by the respondents held that‑‑ "the disputed trees were planted by the Canal Department and also they were grown by the defendants, therefore, the defendants were to be treated as owners." 6‑A. Before this Court the petitioner does not claim the ownership of land in dispute, but it is argued that since the disputed trees were sown by the petitioners, so by all means they are owners of these trees. 7. ` The land has been defined by the Punjab Tenancy Act as under:‑‑ "The expression 'land' means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or let for agricultural purpose or for purposes subservient to agricultural or for pasture and includes‑ (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f)

. (g) all trees standing on such land. " The respondents admittedly being owners of the land in dispute, the ownership of the trees standing on the land automatically vest in them and the learned .Appellate Court was justified in reversing the findings of the learned trial Court on Issues Nos.6 and

7. Following the Rule laid down in the case Government of N.‑W.F.P. through Deputy Commissioner, Bannu and 2 others v. Muhammad Khan alias Aan referred above this civil revision has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./P‑14/L Revision dismissed.