ORDER GHULAM MEHMOOD QURESHI, J. - The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner to restrain ; them from interfering in his possession and ownership of land measuring 45 kanals and 60 marlas in Khata Nos. 113 and 114 situated in Chak No. 2 ML Tehsil Piplan District Mianwali. The suit was contested by the petitioner/defendant and in written statement filed by them they alleged that the suit of respondent/plaintiffs is liable for dismissal under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC and that the respondents/plaintiffs had no cause of action and locus standi to i.e the suit; that the suit is barred by time and that the suit was incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-i.e and jurisdiction. It was further alleged that the respondents had no concern with the disputed trees as the same were allegedly sown by the Forest Department and were standing on the land owned by Canal Department. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the plaint is liable to rejection under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiffs have no concern with the disputed trees? OPD
(4) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court-i.e and jurisdiction, if so what is the correct valuation of the suit property? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to i.e this suit? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land delineated in the head note of the plaint along with of the trees standing thereat? OPP
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get decree for declaration as prayed tor? OPP
(8) Relief.
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 plaintiff is decreed to the extent that they are owners of land measuring 44 kanals and 60 marlas situated in Khata Nos. 53/49 and 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 Addl. District Judge, Mianwali vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.1999.
Hence this civil revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Appellate Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in reversing the findings of learned Trial Court-t 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 petitioner 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 Vs. 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 took 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 defendant in para 1 of the written statement have shown their ignorance about ownership of the disputed land.
Pleadings in para No. 1 of the written statement are evasive in nature and as such it is presumed that the plaintiffs are owner 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 respondent 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."
7. 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.
8. 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 It for agricultural purpose or tor purposes subservient to agricultural or for pasture and includes (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) (t),------- (g) all trees standing on such land."
The respondents admittedly being owner 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 two others Vs. Muhammad Khan alias Aan referred above this civil revision has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.