JUDGMENT Daniels, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit by some of the zamindars for possession of certain trees and the site of a house which belonged originally to a tenant Lamed Jagan Nath and which were sold to the defendant by his widow Musammat Hiria. Toe Court below has found that the four trees which were in dispute belonged to Jagan Nath and that his widow had a right to sell them. In this respect it overruled the trial Court which had decreed the entire suit. As regards the house both Courts have found that Musammat Hiria had no right to sell and have decreed the suit. The defendant Ram Nath appeals. The plaintiffs Mata Sahai, Gulzari and Darshan Singh have filed cross-objections. 2. The appellant set up a custom entitling tenants to sell their houses. The Courts below found that though some instances of sale have occurred no such custom is established. This is a finding of fact based on evidence and the appellant is not entitled to challenge it in second appeal. The pleas put forward in the memorandum of appeal are: (1) That the defendant being one of the proprietary body be has a right to purchase. (2) That by custom the tenants have a right of transfer. (3) That the plaintiffs alone could not sue without joining the other zemindars of the village. (4) Estoppel u/s 115 of the Evidence Act. (5) That the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue for the share of the house sold without partition. 3. The second ground of appeal has already been dealt with. As regards the first plea, if the tenant has no transferable right it does not matter whether the purchaser is one of the proprietary body or an outsider. As regards the third plea, if some of the proprietors do not wish to join in the suit it does not prevent the plaintiffs from claiming joint possession. As regards the fourth plea it has not been shown in what way any question of estoppel arises. The fifth plea has not been argued. All the grounds of appeal fail. 4. Some of the cross-objections challenge the finding that Jagan Nath was the owner of these four trees but as the respondents are not in a position to aver that there was no evidence to support this finding it muse be accepted. 5. The fifth plea has not been argued. All the grounds of appeal fail. 4. Some of the cross-objections challenge the finding that Jagan Nath was the owner of these four trees but as the respondents are not in a position to aver that there was no evidence to support this finding it muse be accepted. 5. It is next argued that in the absence of proof of special custom Jagan Nath, though in possession of the trees, had no right to transfer them. The lower Court relies on the ruling in Jageshwar Sahai v. Raj Mangal 19 A.L.J. 616= 63 I.C. 437 = (1921) 43 All. 606. and I agree with the lower Court that whatever views may formerly have been held the presumption now is that a tenant has a right to cut and sell trees planted by him. 6. Thirdly and lastly, it has been argued that the order of the Court below is not in accordance with the intention of the judgment. It appears from the Munsif's judgment that there were more than four trees in the grove but that it was admitted by the defendant's witness that only four trees belonged to Jagan Nath. The learned Subordinate Judge has also stated clearly that only four trees are in dispute hut he seems to have thought that the grove consisted of those four trees only. On a comparison with the Munsif's judgment and with the pleadings this appears to be incorrect. I accordingly, accepting the cross-objections in part, modify the decree of the Court below to this extent that the decree given by the Munsif for joint possession of the grove will hold good except to the extent of four trees. If more than four trees remain and if any dispute should arise as to the identity of these trees it will be settled in the execution department. In other respects the cross-objections are dismissed. 7. The appeal is also dismissed with costs. As most of the cross-objections have been dismissed the parties will bear their own costs of the cross-objections.