JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This appeal by defendants appellants is directed against judgment and decree dated 28-9-1973 by Sri M. P. Singh, learned III Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi by which Appeal No. 92 of 1973 was allowed with costs; judgment and decree of learned trial Court dated 20-2-1973 in Suit No. 628 of 1970 were set aside and plaintiffs suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 55/- by way of compensation from defendants appellants. They were also restrained perpetually from cutting and appropriating the bamboos from the bamboo clumps in suit which lie in plot No. 208. 2. Dispute relates to bamboo clumps situate in plot No. 208 measuring 20 decimals situated in village Daniyalpur, pargana Sheopur. District Varanasi. 3. This land was alleged as Sirdari of plaintiff. It was alleged that bamboo clumps standing in the land in dispute belonged to plaintiff. These bamboo clumps stood in an area of about 4 decimals of plot No. 208 and were possessed by plaintiff. The remaining area was under his cultivation; defendants had no concern with the plot in dispute nor they had any connection with the bamboo clumps. Defendant No. 1 was a 'Gunda' and unruly and in July 1970 forcibly cut away 20 bamboos from the said clumps without any right or interest, plaintiffs son Sheo Nath made a complaint before S. D. O. but no proceedings were initiated on that complaint. 4. Again on 9-9-1970, both defendants cut away two more bamboos despite the protest of plaintiffs son; hence the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 55/- as damages and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from cutting bamboos from those clumps. 5. Defence was that the bamboo clumps did not belong to the plaintiff but were planted by the grand-father of defendants. These bamboo clumps were standing near the house of defendants. Defendants and their ancestors continued to possess them as owners. There was also a pit surrounded by these bamboo clumps from which they were taking earth for repairs of their house etc. There existed a manure pit, a Sahajan tree and pegs of defendants on the disputed land. They also prepared cow-dung cake and stored wood etc. and tethered their cattle there. 6. They also denied the existence of bamboo clumps in plot No. 208 but conceded the same before the learned lower appellate Court. 7. There existed a manure pit, a Sahajan tree and pegs of defendants on the disputed land. They also prepared cow-dung cake and stored wood etc. and tethered their cattle there. 6. They also denied the existence of bamboo clumps in plot No. 208 but conceded the same before the learned lower appellate Court. 7. Learned Munsif found that the claim was barred by limitation: bamboo clumps belonged to the defendants and plaintiff was not the owner thereof and the plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. 8. This judgment was reversed in appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The first point raised before me by Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Advocate for appellants was that the claim was cognizable by Panchayat Adalat. He proceeded on the reasoning that when the timber was severed from the soil, it became movable property and so such claim about recovery of Rs. 55/- as damages was cognizable by Panchayat Adalat. 11. However, this contention has no force. There was also the main relief for injunction restraining the defendants from cutting bamboos from the bamboo clumps standing on the land in dispute. This relief was not cognizable by Panchayat Adalat. So this contention fails. 12. The next contention was that the learned lower appellate Court himself observed that the parties failed to adduce cogent evidence about plantation of these bamboo clumps and so the claim should have failed. 13. It is true that at one place learned lower appellate Court made such observation but he found that the evidence of plaintiff was more reliable as it was supported by documentary evidence and thereafter the lower appellate Court found plaintiffs evidence superior so far as the evidence about planting of bamboos was concerned. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that the finding of fact recorded by learned lower appellate Court in favour of plaintiff-respondent was not perverse or unsustainable on the evidence on record. 14. Appellant was recorded as a tenure holder on entire plot No. 208 measuring 20 decimals. In Khasras 1376F (Ex. 1) and 1377F (Ex. 2). similar entries were made. Even the bamboo clumps in an area of 4 declimals of plot No. 208 were noted there. The name of defendant or his ancestor did not occur there. 14. Appellant was recorded as a tenure holder on entire plot No. 208 measuring 20 decimals. In Khasras 1376F (Ex. 1) and 1377F (Ex. 2). similar entries were made. Even the bamboo clumps in an area of 4 declimals of plot No. 208 were noted there. The name of defendant or his ancestor did not occur there. Khasra is a document of possession and on this documentary evidence was supported by the testimony of Ramdhani (P. W.l), Ram Das (P. W. 2) and Sheo Nath (P. W. 3) and was not successfully rebutted by Gurdayal (D. W. 1). Sheo Murat (D. W. 2) and Somar (D. W. 3) Thus finding of learned lower appellate Court has to be affirmed. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants next attacked the observation of learned lower appellate Court that once ownership 'on a piece of land is proved it would follow that every thing standing thereon belongs to the owner and not anybody else.' His contention is that planter of the bamboo clumps had every right to claim ownership over the bamboos despite the existence of bamboos in plot No. 208 which was the tenure of plaintiff. 16. In this connection, reliance was placed upon Tilakdhari Singh v. Durga Prasad Singh reported in 1967 Rev. Dec. 270. It appears that in that case the suit was filed by plaintiffs for declaration that they were in possession of a pond and a number of trees standing thereon or on the boundary line thereof. The defendants to the suit were the Gaon Samaj of the village concerned, the State of Uttat Pradesh and one Tilakdhari Singh. 17. Plaintiffs case was that the pond had been dug by their ancestors and the trees had also been planted by their ancestors and that both the pond as well as the trees had been in plaintiffs' possession and, before them, their ancestors since a very long time, with the result that the plaintiffs were the owners of the pond and the trees, despite incorrect entries in the revenue record. This claim was not accepted by the trial court. Learned appellate court disagreed with the trial Court so far as the trees were concerned and held that they were scattered trees planted by plaintiffs' ancestors and were very old and, therefore, plaintiffs' possession had to be upheld. This claim was not accepted by the trial court. Learned appellate court disagreed with the trial Court so far as the trees were concerned and held that they were scattered trees planted by plaintiffs' ancestors and were very old and, therefore, plaintiffs' possession had to be upheld. There was also a reference to R. 26-A framed under the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and it was held that onwership in the trees still continued to vest in the plaintiffs with the result that plaintiffs were granted a decree declaring that they were the owners of the trees in dispute. Neither the State of U. P. nor the Gaon Samaj concerned filed any appeal but the appellant Tilakdhari Singh filed the second appeal. The plaintiffs also filed a cross objection in respect of the dismissal of their claim regarding the pond. It was held by this Court that the pond in dispute was the property of the Zamindar and after abolition of Zamindari it vested in Gaon Samaj; the scattered old trees standing on the pond planted by the plaintiffs' ancestors vested in plaintiffs. It did not lay down that if the trees stood on a holding, these vested in the planter in derogation to rights of tenure-holder. 18. The next authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has been reported in Raja Tiwari v. Ram Lal Tiwari. AIR 1978 All 197 ; (1978 All LJ 168). 19. In that case plaintiff alleged to be Sirdar in possession of the disputed plots. One Mahuwa tree was alleged to have been planted by his great grand-father with the permission of the Zamindar and he continued in possession over the same all along, and that the defendants or their ancestors had no concern with the tree and,-they wrongly threatened to use the usufruct-of the tree. Plaintiff further alleged that the defendants had filed a case against the uncle and brother of the plaintiff in the Pachayat Adalat and it was unlawfully decided by the Panchayat Adalat and as such the defendants become courageous and wrongfully tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the said Mahuwa tree. So the relief for injunction was sought regarding that Mahuwa tree. 20. The claim was contested by defendants who alleged that plaintiffs were never in possession over the disputed plots nor the Sirdar. So the relief for injunction was sought regarding that Mahuwa tree. 20. The claim was contested by defendants who alleged that plaintiffs were never in possession over the disputed plots nor the Sirdar. It was held that since the defendants' ancestor had a right to enjoy the usufruct of the trees standing on the parti land which was not let out when the defendants' ancestor planted tree over it and since the defendants' ancestor was enjoying the fruits of the tree, he could not be divested of his right to enjoy the fruits of the standing tree by the act of the zamindar in letting out the land to the ancestor of the plaintiff. So long as the trees stood on the disputed land, the ancestor of the defendants had a right to enjoy the usufruct even though the zamindar might be the owner of the timber. 21. These authorities are not in point for the simple reason that learned lower appellate Court has found the ancestors of plaintiffs to be planters of bamboo clumps. However, he also found that bamboo clumps are in plot No. 208. In view of this finding which has been affirmed by me. there is no occasion to remand the case to the court below as sought by the learned Advocate for appellants. 22. In Kalpu v. Sanaurar Khan, reported in 1982 (8) All LR 512 : ( AIR 1982 All 307 ) the ownership of disputed trees was decided in plaintiffs favour in earlier suit between parties. Subsequently on the deletion of R. 26-A as ultra vires, it was prayed that earlier decision should not have operated as res judicata, and it was open to the defendant to question the ownership of plaintiff-respondent. Such contention was repelled by this Court. 23. It appears that in that case, the trees in question did not lie in the holding of any person but lay in Banjer land and if such land forms part of the village abadi they would belong to the planter under Section 9 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. 23. It appears that in that case, the trees in question did not lie in the holding of any person but lay in Banjer land and if such land forms part of the village abadi they would belong to the planter under Section 9 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. However, if the trees existed on the boundary of the holding of a tenant on the date of vesting in it and not belonging to such tenant, such trees shall with effect from the date of vesting belong to and vest-in the Sirdars and Bhumidhars of the holding under S. 228 of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act. Thus, it is obvious that the trees standing on the boundary of plot No. 208 shall vest in plaintiff and not in defendants. 24. Moreover, law is organised common sense. It does not appeal to common sense that trees which stand well within plot No. 208 could not have been belonged to the tenure-holder even though trees standing on boundary of plot No. 208 would have belonged to plaintiff vide S. 228 aforesaid. Under S. 81 of U.P. Tenancy Act, a tenant had every right in such trees existing on the tenure. The trees do not stand in air and partake nature of the soil on which they stand. The trees standing on a holding must belong to the tenure-holder and not to third person in derogation of his rights despite the deletion of R. 26-A of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules. 25. No other point was pressed before me. 26. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree are affirmed.