JUDGMENT Madeley and Misra, JJ. - This judgment will cover two appeals against an order u/s 47, C. P. C. 2. On the 16th August, 1937, Rudra Prasad obtained a simple money decree against Hardwari Prasad, Ram Dutt and Ambar Prasad, whose representative-in- interest is Raghuraj. The decree was amended under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act. The decree-holder attached items 1 to 6, being some groves and scattered trees. Hardwari Prasad filed objections u/s 74, C. P. C. His objections were that his land is protected by Section 17 of the Debt Redemption Act and that the groves5 or the grove-holder's interest are not liable to attachment or sale. 3. The executing Court has found that the groves, the land of which belongs to the judgment-debtor, are protected by Section 17, but so far as the other groves are concerned it has dismissed the objections. It has also dismissed the objection in respect of scattered trees standing on an- other's land. 4. Section 2 (8) of the Debt Redemption Act defines land; 'land' means land in a mahal in the United Provinces but does not include land occupied by buildings or appurtenant thereto or land within the, limits of any municipality, cantonment or notified area. 5. Section 17 protects the land of a certain class of agriculturist to which the judgment-debtor has been held to belong. That finding has become binding 6. Section 22 provides that no decree to which this Act applies shall be executed by the transfer of trees belonging to an agriculturist unless the land on which such tersest and is also transferred : provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the execution of a decree by the sale of the interest of a grove-holder. 7. The decree-holder's learned Counsel has cited before us four decisions of the Board of Revenue. In Kedar Nath v. Tulsa Kunwar 1941 RD 1129 : AWR (Rev) 116 : OA (Sup) 935, Harper S, M. and Shirreff J. M. held, A grove is not land within the meaning of Section 2 (8) of the Debt Redemption Act, and even if the land on which the' trees stand is protected, the interest of the grove holder is a thing which can be sold apart from the land. 8. 8. At page 1130 the Hon'ble Board orders ; It will be necessary, at the time of sale, to make it clear that what is being sold is the right of a grove-holder, and that the purchaser will have this right as against the, proprietor of the land under Chapter X of the U. P. Tenancy Act, whether that proprietor be the appellants (sc. judgment-debtors) or any other persons. 9. In Kanhaiya Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal 1942 O A (Sup) 261 : AWR (Rev) 235 : OWN (Rev.) 215, it was held: The fact that land is protected u/s 17, Debt Redemption Act does not prevent, the sale of the groves on it. Although a proprietor who owns a grove is not a grove-holder within the U. P. Tenancy Act, the grove can certainly be transferred without the land, just as a grove- holder's grove can be transferred without the land. 10. This is a decision of Shirreff S. M. and Sathe J. M. At. page 216 Sathe J. M. says: My learned colleague is however inclined to hold that a grove can be sold notwithstanding the protection given to the debtor-applicant by Section 17 of -the Debt Redemption Act as (1) a grove- "Holder need not be a proprietor of the land on which the grove stands and (2) grove-holder's rights can be created by sale in execution of a decree or otherwise u/s 206 (c) of the U. P. Tenancy Act. I agree with him. 11. Similarly Shirreff S. M. held in the same volume page 158 and Shirreff S. M. .and Sathe J. M. in the same volume page 496. 12. Three members of the Board of Revenue have taken this view. 13. In 1939 the U. P. Tenancy Act came into force. In that Act a grove-holder was defined in Section 205. A person who has planted a grove (a) on land which was let or granted to him by a landlord, for the purpose of planting a grove ; (b) with the written permission of the land- lord or in accordance with local custom entitling him to do so, on land which he held as a tenant other than as a sub-tenant, a permanent tenure-holder, or a fixed-rate tenant, or a tenant holding on special terms in Oudh or an occupancy tenant in Oudh : Shall be the grove-holder of such grove. 14. 14. Section 206 lays down certain conditions attaching to grove-holders and in sub-Section (c) it says the interest of a grove-holder shall be transferable by voluntary transferor in execution of a decree of a Civil or Revenue court or otherwise. 15. The Debt Redemption Act was enacted in 1940, and we think that the provisions of Section 21 were made with reference to the provisions of Section 2 6, and that the interest of a grove-holder means the interest of a grove-holder as defined in the former Act. 16. The only question is whether a landlord who plants trees on his own land can be said* to have a grove-holder's interest as distinguished from his ownership in the land. The Hon'ble Board of Revenue has held that he has such an interest included in his larger right of ownership and that when it is transferred u/s 206 (c) a grove-holder's interest u/s 205 is created. As the learned lower Court puts it He (decree-holder's (Counsel) further point! out that under the proviso to Section 22 sale of "the interest of a grove-holder is permitted, and argues that the judgment-debtor's rights of a grove-holder in items,. 1, 3, which is included in the judgment-debtor's greater right of ownership of the grove, may be detached from ownership and therefore can be sold under the proviso to Section 22. 17. The learned lower Court objects to this splitting up of the right of the owner bi the grove and says that it is like dividing a nun's right of residence in his house from his right of transfer of the house so that the latter may be transferred to another without the former. Naturally this will lead to a conflict. But the instance is not parallel. Such difficulties have been foreseen and considered by the Hon'ble Board of Revenue. It makes it clear in its order in the first case cited that the transferee of the right will have the same right against the proprietor, whoever that may be, as a grove-holder, under Chapter X of the U. P. Tenancy Act, has. As Sathe J. M. puts it a grove-holder's rights can be created by sale in execution of a decree or otherwise u/s 206 (c) of the U. P. Tenancy Act. 18. As Sathe J. M. puts it a grove-holder's rights can be created by sale in execution of a decree or otherwise u/s 206 (c) of the U. P. Tenancy Act. 18. We have carefully considered this view of the Board of Revenue and we think that it is not open to any objection and that we should adopt it. We do not agree with the lower Court's view that these decisions do not apply to proceedings which are directly under the U. P. Debt Redemption Act. 19. The appeal succeeds so far as items 1 and 4 are concerned. Grove-holder's rights are liable to attachment and sale in these items. No grove-holder's rights can be carved out in the case of scattered trees like item No. 3. The parcel of land on which the trees stand cannot be transferred with the trees because the land of the judgment-debtor is protected. The appeal of the decree-holder therefore fails so far as item No. 3 is concerned. 20. Turning to the appeal of the Judgment- debtor Hardwari Prasad it fails with the exception of item No. 6 which consists of scattered trees on another's land. It is clear that in execution of this decree the parcels of land underneath these trees cannot be sold because it is not the land of the judgment-debtor. We do not agree with the interpretation put upon Section 21 of the Debt Redemption Act by the lower Court. Since the la id on which these trees stand is not "also transferred", the trees cannot be transferred in execution. We allow the appeal of Hardwari Prasad in respect of item No. 6 but dismiss it in respect of the other items. 21. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court and in the lower Court.