JUDGMENT B. Dayal, J. - This second appeal has been referred to this Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court as a question relating to trees standing on agricultural holdings was involved and it was considered to be on important question of law. 2. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this Court, filed a suit for a declaration that they are the owners of the trees described at the foot of the plaint, for possession thereof and for recovery of Lain damages. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and the appeal by the plaintiffs before the District Judge was also dismissed. 3. In this appeal the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is confined only in respect of trees standing on plots Nos. 257, 209/1. 332 and 181. In respect of trees standing on other plots learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed his case. 4. In the court below a distinction was made between the trees standing on the plots mentioned above and the other trees on the ground that the defendants, who were tenants of the plots in which the trees were standing, were found to have acquired tenancy rights in the other plots not mentioned above such earlier and were, therefore, entitled to the ownership of the trees by virtue of Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act but in respect of the plots enumerated above the defendants had enquired rights after the relevant date and, therefore. had not become owners of the trees standing on those picas The court below has also found on facts that the two appellants had in fact purchased all the trees for which they have filed the suit. The court below dismissed the suit with regard to the trees on the plots enumerated above on the ground that after the passing of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the State Government had framed a rule 26-A under which trees standing inside the holding of a tenure-holder were to belong to him and it, therefore, held that the plaintiffs had lost their right in those trees also by virtue of that rule although they did not lose their right under Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that Rule 26-A framed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was ultra tires as it was beyond the rule making power given under the Act itself. The court below also held that the rule appeared to be beyond the power but unfortunately it remarked that it had- no jurisdiction to declare the rule invalid. We are unable to accept this attitude. It is the duty of the civil court to scrutinise the validity of each law challenged before it and if the law does not spear to be validly framed, to declare it ultra vires and not to give effect to it. The court below was, therefore, clearly wrong in making that remark and following that rule although it came to the conclusion that it was ultra vires. 5. We shall now proceed to examine whether this rule was ultra vires and as it was beyond the rule making power given under the Act itself. On behalf of the respondents it was contended that this rule had been framed under the powers given under Section 26 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. That section is as follows: "The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter." 6. By sub-Sec. (2) certain specific powers were mentioned without prejudice to the general powers mentioned in sub-Sec. (1). None of these are relevant and they need not be quoted. Thus the power given by Section 26 is to make rules for carrying into_ effect the provisions of this Chapter. In the whole of this Chapter no provision has been made affecting the rights in trees standing on the holding of a tenant. It is significant to note that under Section 4 only the rights of the intermediaries have been abolished from the date of vesting and under Section 6 details have been given how that vesting is to affect certain rights. Under CL (a) (i) of Section 6 express provision has been made with regard to the abolition of rights of the intermediaries in trees other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove, so that the trees standing in a bad or in a holding or a grove have been exempted from the operation of this vesting. Under CL (a) (i) of Section 6 express provision has been made with regard to the abolition of rights of the intermediaries in trees other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove, so that the trees standing in a bad or in a holding or a grove have been exempted from the operation of this vesting. The intention of the Legislature is quite clear that the trees which are standing in abadi or in a holding of a tenant or in a grove will continue to belong to the person whom they belonged at the date of vesting. This intention is made further clear by Section 203 of the Act where it has been provided that upon ejectment of the tenant if he is the owner of any trees in the land in his holding lie is entitled to compensation for it and if that compensation is not paid by the purchaser or the landlord who ejects him he will then continue to have a right to tend that tree and to take the fruits of that tree and to use that tree till that tree dies. Section 228 further provided with regards to trees standing on boundaries and states that such trees shall belong jointly to the Bhurnidhars and the Sirdars of the two adjoining plots. This also gives an idea that the trees which stand inside holdings have not been affected and continue to belong to the owners thereof as before the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Thus the intention of the Act being not to affect the rights of the owners of the trees standing in agricultural plots Rule 26-A, which defeated the rights of the owners of the trees and vested all the trees in the tenure holder was obviously ultra wires. This rule was framed in August 1953 and was ultimately deleted in March 1963 so that that rule does not exist on the statute now. We are clearly of opinion that this rule could not affect the rights of the plaintiffs if they were the owners of those trees at the time of vesting. It may here be noted that the ownership or trees standing in plots of agricultural holdings has always been governed by the general law of the land-'and the custom of particular village. It may here be noted that the ownership or trees standing in plots of agricultural holdings has always been governed by the general law of the land-'and the custom of particular village. The tenancy legislation has except for Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act not affected the rights of ownership of the trees. Under the general law the tree was supposed to be a part of the land and as zamindars were the owners of the whole Mohal they were considered to be the owners of the trees and the tenant of a particular field by virtue of his tenancy was entitled to use the fruits of the tree also but could not deal with the tree itself which was deemed to belong to the zamindar. This position could be affected by contract or local custom. By the passing of Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act the position was altered and those trees which were standing on tenancy holding became the absolute ownership of those tenants if the conditions mentioned in Section 81 were satisfied. The result, therefore, was that the tenant was a tenant of the land but was the absolute owner of the trees covered by Section 81. U. P. Tenancy Act. There being no restriction to his right to transfer the trees he could even transfer the trees and third persons could become the owners of the trees. Upon ejectment of a tenant the Act provided for payment of compensation to the tenant in respect of the trees belonging to him which stood on the holding. It was in this state of law that the present U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was passed. The Legislature did not like to continue the provisions of Section 81 and consequently did not reenact any provision parallel to Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, But in the absence of any positive enactment the right in trees which vested before the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act could not be defeated and have to be recognised as existing. In this situation when the court below has found as a fact that the plaintiffs had purchased the trees standing on plots Nos. In this situation when the court below has found as a fact that the plaintiffs had purchased the trees standing on plots Nos. 257, 209/1, 332 and 181 and had been in possession of those trees within twelve years of the date of the suit and the defendants had not acquired any rights in those trees under Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, the plaintiffs' suit in respect of those trees was bound to be decreed. With respect to the other trees the court below has found that the tenants had acquired ownership in those trees by virtue of Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act and thus the rights which the plaintiffs had acquired by purchase were lost and that the defendants were in possession of the trees in those plots in which they acquired rights under Section 81 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. These are findings of fact and we see no reason to. interfere. 7. The result, therefore, is that the plaintiffs' appeal is partly allowed. The suit in respect of trees standing on plots Nos. 257, 209/1, 332 and 181 is decreed and the suit in respect of the other trees is dismissed. Since the parties have partly succeeded and partly failed we think it proper to order the parties to bear their own costs.