ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession over two trees alleged to be on the western boundary of plot No. 1051 of village Kurey, district Kanpur. 2. The Plaintiff's case in brief was that these two disputed trees stood on the Mend of plot No. 1051 as such after the abolition of zamindari these two trees vested in the Plaintiff and since the Defendant had wrongfully taken the fruits thereof he might be allowed possession over the trees and Rs. 100/- as damages in respect of the fruits of the trees utilised by the Defendant. 3. This suit was contested by the Defendant who claimed that plot No. 1052 which was a grove was-purchased by his ancestor in the year 1910 and since then the Defendant's predecessor and the Defendant had been in possession over the plot as well as the trees standing thereon. The Defendant denied that the trees in dispute lay on the boundary of plot No. 1051. 4. On the pleadings of the parties relevant issues were framed by the trial court and in the trial court successive commissions no less than six were issued to perpare the map but as chance would have it all the maps were rejected except the last one. So far as the last map is concerned there was yet a supplementary report and the map prepared was accepted by the trial court. According to the last supplementary report of the Commissioner out of the two trees one tree lay in plot No. 1052 and a small portion lay in plot No. 1051, It was in these circumstances that after the preparation of the various maps that the trial of the case started. Oral evidence was led by the parties who supported their respective cases. Oral evidence of the Plaintiff was held to be unreliable and was discarded by the trial court and the trial court also held that the two trees that were in dispute did not lie in plot No. 1051 as such the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. 5. On appeal the lower appellate court criticised the decision of the trial court and confirmed the map and report of the Commissioner yet did not rely on the same. 5. On appeal the lower appellate court criticised the decision of the trial court and confirmed the map and report of the Commissioner yet did not rely on the same. The lower appellate court after discussing the oral evidence of the Plaintiff agreed with the trial court that the evidence of the Plaintiff was worthless and it came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had come with a false case before the court. According to the lower appellate court since there was no demarcating line at the spot it was difficult to accept that Plaintiff who was claiming title to the two trees only after the abolition of Zamindari could have been in possession over the two trees in dispute or could it with any certainty be said that the trees were on the Mend of plot No. 1051. Learned Judge of the lower appellate court also did not accept that the Plaintiff had affirmatively proved that any one of the trees was on the boundary of plot No. 1051. Accordingly the decision of the trial court was affirmed. 6. The Plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court and it has been streneously argued by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that in the state of affairs of this case the judgment of the lower appellate court should be set aside and the case should be sent back for a fresh demarcation and preparation of the map by a court Amin who is more experienced than the Commissioner. 7. I have considered this submission of the Learned Counsel but in my opinion after the rejection of as many as six Commissioner's map and report and in view of the interpretation I am putting on Section 228 of the UP ZA and LR Act upon which reliance has been placed by the Plaintiff Appellant it is not possible to accept this submission. In this case the Plaintiff has claimed title to the two disputed trees by virtue of Section 228 of the UP ZA and LR Act. 8. In this case the Plaintiff has claimed title to the two disputed trees by virtue of Section 228 of the UP ZA and LR Act. 8. Section 228 of the UP ZA and LR Act reads as follows: Any tree existing on that boundary of the holding of a tenant on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and not belonging to such tenant shall, with effect from the date of vesting belong to and vest in the sirdars and bhumidhars of the holding adjoining the said boundary in equal shares. 9. In order to attract the provisions of the above section the trees in dispute should be on the boundary of the tenants holding at the date of vesting and such tree should not belong to the tenant. This will follow that when certain trees are on the boundary of two holdings belonging to different tenure holders such trees should not belong to any one of the tenure holders. In case it belongs to any one of the tenure holders no benefit of Section 228 of the UP ZA and LR Act can be derived. In short the tree referred to in Section 228 of the said Act is the tree belonging to the zamindar and immediately before the date of vesting and not belonging to the tenants. 10. In the present case the Plaintiff who has claimed title by virtue of Section 228 of the Act could only succeed if he proved that the trees were on the boundary of his field and that the same did not belong to the tenure holders on the boundary of whose holding the trees stood. The Plaintiff in the present case had failed to prove this as such his suit has rightly been dismissed by the two courts below. 11. The Defendant is in possession of the contiguous holding by virtue of a sale deed of the year 1910 through which his father had purchased the trees standing on that holding and on the evidence on record I am satisfied that the trees in dispute which lie in plot No. 1052 were included in the aforesaid sale deed. In this view of the matter also the Plaintiff's suit had rightly been dismissed. 12. Accordingly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.