JUDGMENT A.L. VAIDYA, J.—Plaintiffs, who happened to be Baryagi, Chaman Lal, Hem Singh, Sukhu, Kumari Dharmi and Balku, respondents 2 (a) to 6 had filed a suit praying for reliefs A, B and C, as detailed in the plaint. During the pendency of the present proceedings, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs made a statement at the bar that plaintiff-respondents do not press the reliefs A and B and withdrew the same, with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. That prayer was allowed. Reliefs A and B, as pleaded by the plaintiffs, on account of the withdrawal, cannot be granted and the suit, as such, to that effect, stands dismissed. 2. On the basis of relief ‘C’ which survived, the plaintiffs had made the following prayer : "Suit for declaration to this effect that the plaintiffs exclusively have right to take away the leaves of the trees to 7/8th share in 223 trees which were of the kind of Mohru and situated in Class III Forest undemarcated, village Dogri Kothi, Mangarh and that defendant No. 1 had no right whatsoever to lop the branches of those trees." It has been pleaded by the plaintiffs that in Kullu iliaqua, trees of Ban and Mohru, situated in Class III Forest near the abadi of the village were there and the zimindarans have partitioned the same. It has also been pleaded that every zimindar, as per his share, was lopping the branches of these trees and in winter those branches were given to the goat and sheep and other cattle as fodder. Plaintiffs have further averred that in the forest under reference, there were numerous trees which have been partitioned amongst the owners and every owner, in accordance with the share allotted to him, was lopping the branches of those trees allotted to him. According to plaintiffs, there was one owner named Poda S/o Swaru/R/o Dogri and on his death, his rights were inherited by Smt, Rup Chandi, grand daughter of Poda as Shri Mansu-S/o Shri Poda had pre-deceased his father. Thereafter, as per plaintiffs, this Smt. Rup Chandi also died and her estate was inherited by Shri Beli Rain. According to plaintiffs, there was one owner named Poda S/o Swaru/R/o Dogri and on his death, his rights were inherited by Smt, Rup Chandi, grand daughter of Poda as Shri Mansu-S/o Shri Poda had pre-deceased his father. Thereafter, as per plaintiffs, this Smt. Rup Chandi also died and her estate was inherited by Shri Beli Rain. Plaintiffs also alleged that the trees as referred in head note C of the plaint fell to the share of Poda and the right of these trees for lopping the branches was inherited by Smt. Rup Chandi who has been exercising this right exclusively throughout her life and after her death, Shri Beli Ram exercised this right. According to plaintiffs, Beli Ram died on 25.12.1968 and his estate was inherited by Smt. Fagni, Smt. Neem Dassi, Balku plaintiff No. 6, Baryagi plaintiff No. 1 and after the death of Beli Ram, the aforesaid heirs have been exercising the right of lopping the branches of trees which was the subject matter of relief ‘C’ It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that after the death of Smt. Neem Dassi on 6.4.1975, her estate was inherited by defendants 2 and 3 as her sons and they had been exercising the rights referred to above over the trees of the forest. Smt. Fagni was alleged to have died on 18.3.1977 and thereafter her estate was inherited by plaintiffs 1 to 5 as husband and sons/ daughters of the deceased. Thus, according to plaintiffs, they and defendants 2 and 3 have been exercising the rights of lopping the branches of the trees from the forest referred to above and they were entitled to exercise that right in future also. 3. Defendant No. 1 was alleged to be a cunning person who got executed a sale deed in his favour from one Lajju who was since dead. He is threatening to exercise the rights of taking the branches of the trees, though he was not having any right to that effect. It was on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances that the suit for declaration and injunction has been preferred against defendant No. 1. 4. He is threatening to exercise the rights of taking the branches of the trees, though he was not having any right to that effect. It was on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances that the suit for declaration and injunction has been preferred against defendant No. 1. 4. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 and in his written statement, various preliminary objections were raised, i.e. that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, that the suit was barred by limitation and that no proper Court fee has been affixed. On merit, the case of defendant No. 1 has been that he purchased the land in dispute through a registered sale deed dated 1.10.1975 and prior to this one Lajju, the vendor was owner in possession of the said land in dispute who was exercising the right of lopping the branches of the trees. It was also pleaded and admitted to this extent that trees of Ban and Mohru did exist in III Class forest, but, it was denied that these trees had been partitioned amongst the right holders. It was admitted that there was one Podu S/o Swaru and Smt. Rup Chandi inherited him and her property devolved upon one Beli Ram who further gifted 8-19 bighas land including GHASNI and trees thereto to one Lajoo, who had further transferred the land and Ghasni and lopping right to the replying defendant vide registered sale deed dated 1.10.1975. The other averments made in the plaint were not admitted. 5. Parties were put to trial on the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiffs have the exclusive rights of lopping of the leaves from III Class forest in dispute as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether defendant No. 1 has purchased the rights from late Shri Lajju as alleged? If so its effect? OPD (1). 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD (1). 4. Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable? OPP. 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued? If so what is the correct valuation? OPD-1. 6. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against defendant No. 4? OPP. 7. Relief. 6. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs while issue Nos. 2 and 3 in the negative. Issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs while Issue No. 5 against the defendant. OPD-1. 6. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against defendant No. 4? OPP. 7. Relief. 6. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs while issue Nos. 2 and 3 in the negative. Issue No. 4 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs while Issue No. 5 against the defendant. Under Issue No. 6, it was held that the plaintiffs have got cause of action against defendant No. 4. The suit of the plaintiffs pertaining to prayer C as pointed out above, was decreed and they were declared to be having exclusive right of lopping the branches of the trees standing in III Class forest and defendant No. 1 was permanently restrained from interfering with their rights of lopping the branches of the trees in the aforesaid forest. 7. The aforesaid judgment and decree were assailed in an appeal before the first Appellate Court where also, after hearing the parties, the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiffs had also assailed the decree of the trial Court in an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which appeal was also dismissed. The Cross Objections filed by the plaintiffs in the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 were also not allowed. 8. This defendant No. 1 whose successors are the present appellants assailed the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court on various grounds. 9. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been scrutinised. 10. The main document relied upon by the parties regarding the alleged rights of lopping the branches of the trees from Class III forest, is the entry in the wazib-ul-urz which is Ex. P-4/A on record. This entry reads as under : "FIKRA - 6—ZIKAR DARAKHTAN SAMAR VA GAIR SAMAR - ARAZI MAKBUJA VA GAIR MAKBU JA MALHAQ ABADI JO PAIMAYISH MAIN AAI YA NAHIN AAI - AUR ISMAIN DARAKHTAN AJ KISAM KHNAUR - MOHRU - BAN - AKHTOR - AARU - SHAHRI - DARU VA£YA HAIN - VAH SAB HUM ZIMINDARAN KE BAHAM MANKASAM HAIN - AUR SAB KOI INKO JANATA HAIKI FALAN SHAKAS KA KABJA IN PAR KAHIM SE HAI - SO JISKE KABJA MAIN VAH KAHIM SE CHALE AATE HAIN VAHI FAL VA PATTI LETA HAI. AGAR AISE DARAKHTAN BANJAR GAIR MAKBUJA MAIN ABADI SE FASALA PAR HAIN AUR MALKAN KE TAKSIM KAHIN NAHIN HAI - TO AISE DARAKHTAN KE FAL AUR PATTI HAR KOI LETA HAI MAGAR IS INDRAJ SE KOI AISA HAQ YA BARTAN JADID KISI KO HASIL NAHIN HOTA HAI. MA SIVAIISKE KI JISKA JIKAR KABAIAD JANGALAT MARTABBA MI. ANDARSEN SAHAB BAHADUR MOHATMIM BANDOBAST JANGALAT MAIN DARAJ HAIN." 11. Both the Courts below have dis-allowed the alleged right of defendant No. 1 on two grounds; firstly defendant No. 1 was not resident of the area, the zimindars of which area were exercising the aforesaid rights which were recognised by the aforesaid entries in the wazib-ul-urz and secondly, because of the fact that on the basis of the sale and gift as pleaded by defendant No. 1, he could not become the zirnindax or owner of the area and as such, was not in a position to exercise those rights. The Courts below also came to the conclusion that the trees have been partitioned amongst the owners and, therefore, on the basis of entry in the wazib-ul-urz, such a right could not be exercised by defendant No. 1. 12. In so far as wazib-ul-urz entry is concerned, there is nothing in this entry that right being so exercised by the owner, could be exercised by the persons only who inherited that ownership of the last owner. There is no bar in the wazib-ul-urz entry that the person acquiring ownership by transfer i e. by sale or gift was not in a position to acquire those rights. The wazib-ul-urz entry is also silent in case a person who was enjoying this right died issueless without leaving any heir, whether his rights would be succeeded by the surviving owners. So to argue that defendant No. 1 was altogether stranger to the area and by means of sale and gift, could not acquire that right, is not supported by the entry in the wazib-ul-urz. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs had sought sufficient time to produce the report of the Settlement Officer referred in the wazib-ul-urz, but that has not been so done till today. 13. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the gift deed Ex. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs had sought sufficient time to produce the report of the Settlement Officer referred in the wazib-ul-urz, but that has not been so done till today. 13. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the gift deed Ex. P-3 on record which was executed by Beli Ram, undisputedly the owner in the area, in favour of Lajju, it has been specifically recorded that all the rights attached to the land gifted, (those rights have been described in the gift deed) were transferred in favour of the donee. In those rights, it has been mentioned that gift deed was made not for the trees standing on the gifted land This gift deed was dated 13.2.1957. 14. Ex. D-l is the sale deed pertaining to 8-19 bighas of land which was executed by Lajju in favour of defendant No. 1 late Khaltu Ram and in this sale deed, it has been very specifically mentioned that apart from the ownership rights of this land sold, the transfer was made alongwith other rights of grazing in the shamlat deh and the rights in the forest and rights of taking the grass from the ghasni and right of taking branches of the trees, meaning thereby, the rights which were being enjoyed by the vendor and which were attached to the land transferred, those rights were also transferred through the said sale deed. 15. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid wazib-ul-urz entry, the right so enjoyed by the transferor could be easily enjoyed by the transferee in accordance with law. There is no such specific bar in the entry in the wazib-ul-urz. 16. The only bar in the wazib-ul-urz was pertaining to the trees which were in exclusive possession of a particular owner through times immemorial and it was very specifically mentioned in the wazib-ul-urz that where no partition has been there, anybody could exercise rights for the trees situated in the said forest. 17. The plaintiffs have tried to bring on record the fact that the owners had already partitioned the trees since long and they were in occupation of those trees exclusively for exercising those rights. In this behalf, plaintiffs have tried to examine some evidence. 18. PW-4 is Shri Baragu, who has tried to support the case of the plaintiffs. 17. The plaintiffs have tried to bring on record the fact that the owners had already partitioned the trees since long and they were in occupation of those trees exclusively for exercising those rights. In this behalf, plaintiffs have tried to examine some evidence. 18. PW-4 is Shri Baragu, who has tried to support the case of the plaintiffs. Regarding partition, he stated that in their village the Mohru trees in the III Class forest were already partitioned. He further added that in the share of plaintiffs, 223 Mohru trees were allotted. PW-5 is Shri Podu who stated that the villagers had right to take away the leaves of the forest trees. According to him, the villagers had partitioned those trees. Similar is the version given by PW-7. 19. It may not be out of place to mention here that the aforesaid partition has not been admitted by defendant No. 1 as per the written statement preferred by him. A very general type of statements have been given by the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, as referred to above the partition had taken place. There is no detail of the partition alleged to have taken place amongst the owners by the zimindars of the area. There is no particular evidence as to how many trees were partitioned and who were the owners, in whose favour how many trees were allotted? A general statement, in this behalf, will not be legally competent to discharge the onus of this aspect which lay heavily upon the plaintiffs. It appeared that on the basis of the aforesaid entries in the wazib-ul-urz, this plea of partition has been taken, but the same has not been proved through a legally competent evidence. In that view of the matter also, the existence of exclusive rights being claimed by the plaintiffs cannot be inferred on the basis of the wazib-ul-urz entries already referred to earlier. 20. Taking into consideration the over-all facts present in this case, both the Courts below fell into an error in holding the exclusive rights of the plaintiffs for lopping the forest trees from the forest under reference. On the other hand, on the basis of the wazib-ul-urz entry, all the persons, i.e. all the owners shall have such right to be exercised in Forest III under reference, and the claim of the plaintiffs having exclusive rights, cannot be accepted. 21. On the other hand, on the basis of the wazib-ul-urz entry, all the persons, i.e. all the owners shall have such right to be exercised in Forest III under reference, and the claim of the plaintiffs having exclusive rights, cannot be accepted. 21. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present appeal succeeds and as a consequence thereof, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, are set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. CMP 527/91, in view of the aforesaid order in the main appeal, is also dismissed. Appeal allowed.