Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the plaintiff who sued for damages for seven trees cut and removed by the defendants from the property purchased by him from one Gangadhara Mayya on December 28,1954. The sale deed, which is Ext. A2, does not except from the sale any tree on the property, and as trees growing on the land must go along "with the land on alienation the title to all the trees on the land at the time of his purchase must be deemed to have vested in the plaintiff under his purchase. The 1st defendant, on the strength of a 'Kaikagada' (Hand-note) dated October 10, 1954, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 180/- by the aforesaid Gangadhara Mayya described as the price of seven trees, specified as one teak tree, two jack trees, two tamarind trees, one mango tree and one neerolu tree standing on the property, entered the property with the other defendants on July 12,1955, and felled the seven trees for which the damages is claimed here. 2. There is a sharp dispute between the parties as to the genuineness of Ext. B1, the aforesaid Kaikagada; but in view of the effect of Ext. B1, that I am taking, that question may be overlooked here. 3. Ext. B1 is a hand-note acknowledging receipt of Rs. 180/- by Gangadhara Mayya as the price of seven trees, one teak tree, two jack trees, two tamarind trees, one mango tree and one neerolu tree, standing on the suit property and empowering the 1st, defendant'to cut and remove the trees whenever he found them necessary without fear of objection from the vendor or his heirs.' S. 2 (6) of the Indian Registration Act defines immovable property to include "land, buildings, hereditary allowances, rights to ways, lights, ferries, or any other benefit fisheries to arise out of land, & things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to anything which is permanently attached to the earth, but not standing timber, growing crops nor grass." S. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act defines immovable property as not including 'standing timber, growing crops or grass'. Under S.54 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.17 and 49 of the Registration Act a sale of immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and above can only be by a registered instrument, which Ext. B1 is not. But it is contended that Ext. Under S.54 of the Transfer of Property Act and S.17 and 49 of the Registration Act a sale of immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and above can only be by a registered instrument, which Ext. B1 is not. But it is contended that Ext. B1 evidences a sale of 7 standing timbers and is not therefore caught within the mischief of the abovesaid sections. As pointed out by Vivian Bose, J. in Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay (AIR. 1958 SC. 532) a "standing timber" is different from a growing tree which latter is well within the definition of immovable property. A tree draws nourishment from the soil and grows; while a standing timber is wood not been severed from the earth. If the vendee of a tree apart from the land is to cut and separate it from the earth within a reasonably short time, it would be a sale of a standing timber. But, if he is entitled to leave the tree as such on the land and thereby take the benefit of its growth in the meanwhile it is the sale of a growing tree and not of a standing timber. Ext. B1 allows the 1st defendant to keep the trees standing on the property till such time as he chooses to fell them. The vendee is therefore entitled to leave the trees growing on the land for an indefinite length of time. Ext. B1 therefore evidences a sale, not of timber but of trees growing on the land and therefore of immovable property. Being unregistered, it has to be held ineffective to confer on the vendee any legal title to the trees in question which must then be held to have passed to the plaintiff under Ext. A2. It then follows that the plaintiff is entitled to the damages sued for. 4. In the result, in discharge of the decree of the Subordinate Judge, that of the Munsiff is restored with costs here and in the court below. Allowed.