JUDGMENT : DANIELS, J.:— The dispute in this case relates to a grove No. 168 in mauza Ghatampur in the Allahabad District. The grove was planted by the ancestors of the second and third defendants with the permission of the zemindar on payment of nazrana, and they occupied the land as grove-holders. They have transferred their rights in the grove by a sale-deed to the first defendant Chandarpal Singh. The plaintiff-appellant, Baijnath Singh, thereupon instituted the present suit on the allegation that the transfer was unlawful and that it gave the zemindar a right to recover possession of the land. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit. They held that under the general law a person who plants a grove with the permission of the zemindar acquires a transferable interest in the trees and that the plaintiff has failed to prove any custom disentitling the defendants from transferring their rights. 2. Two points arise in the appeal: (1) whether a custom forbidding grove-holders to transfer the trees is laid down in the wajib-ul-arz of the village and, if so, whether it has been rebutted; (2) whether the general law has been rightly laid down by the courts below. 3. At the time when the wajib-ul-arz was prepared, the village was owned by a single zemindar. The wajib-ul-arz states that there are in this village certain groves of which a separate list is given. The clause continues, “Apart from eating the fruits and flowers the planters have no kind of right of cutting down, selling or mortgaging without the permission of the zemindar. The zemindar has no right to a share in the produce, and no one can plant a grove in future without the permission of the zemindar, and when the land of the groves becomes vacant, it will be under the zemindar's control. Read in connection with the previous sentence, the natural reference of the word planters (nasiban) is to the planters of the groves which have just been enumerated. Having regard, moreover, to the form of the clause and to the prohibition which follows against planting fresh groves without permission, it seems highly doubtful whether this clause intended to lay down any general custom. Having regard, moreover, to the form of the clause and to the prohibition which follows against planting fresh groves without permission, it seems highly doubtful whether this clause intended to lay down any general custom. At any rate it appears to me that the natural construction of the clause relied on by the appellant is to limit it to the groves which are specifically referred to in the clause. 4. I find, therefore, that there is no evidence of any special custom governing the case. It becomes necessary to consider whether the courts below have rightly laid down the general law prevailing in the province. The appellant contends that when a grove is planted with the zemindar's permission, the ordinary rule is that the grove-holder has no transferable interest in the trees. He has been unable to cite any reported case in support of this view, but he relies on two unreported decisions, Letters Patent Appeal No. 23 of 1909, and a single Judge decision in S.A. No. 118 of 1914. The former decision was considered and distinguished in the case of Muhammad Yasin v. Ilahi Bakhsh, [1912] I.L.R., 34 All., 545, relied on by the court below. It was pointed out that in the unreported Letters Patent Appeal the wajib-ul-arz distinctly stated that the trees belonged to the zemindars. The Muhammad Vasin's case laid down the law as being that prima facie every man has a right to dispose of any property he possesses whether it be a grove or anything else. It is no doubt open to the comment that these remarks were obiter as the wajib-ul-arz in that particular case declared expressly that persons planting the groves should have rights of ownership in the trees. There are, however, other cases not depending on the terms of any special wajib-ul-arz which have laid down the law in the same sense. Two of these cases are referred to by the learned Judge, Haidar Ali Khan v. Gangu, [1906] W.N., 204. and Mohammad Ismail Khan v. Mithu Lal, [1913] 11 A.L.J.R. 649.. The same view has very recently been taken in Jalcsar Sahu v. Raj Mangal, [1921] I.L.R., 43 All., 606, a case which was specially referred to a Bench for the purpose of settling the law on the object. and Mohammad Ismail Khan v. Mithu Lal, [1913] 11 A.L.J.R. 649.. The same view has very recently been taken in Jalcsar Sahu v. Raj Mangal, [1921] I.L.R., 43 All., 606, a case which was specially referred to a Bench for the purpose of settling the law on the object. In that case it was held that the planting of a grove with the permission of a zemindar even on occupancy land had the effect of changing the status of a tenant into a grove-holder and that the latter had a transferable right in the trees. I find, therefore, that the view of the law taken by the courts below is correct, and I accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.