( 1 ) BY this petition the petitioner prakash Rai has challenged order dated 29-7-2005 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Amarpatan, District satna in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 10/2005 rejecting the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that agricultural land bearing No. 207, area 1-87 situated in Village Parsiya, Tahsil Amarpatan, district Satna was sold by the petitioner's brother Rajendra Kumar Pandey to the respondent om Prakash Mahendra by registered sale deed. The petitioner contended that there stood 107 engrafted trees of mango planted by the petitioner on the said land whose value was not less than Rs. 10 lacs as the trees bore fruit of a rare species of mangoes and at the time of registration of the sale deed it had been told to the respondent that the mango trees were not being sold and they were not mentioned in the sale deed dated 4-11 -2003 (Annexure P/4 ). That the land was mutated alongwith the trees mentioned in the revenue records in favour of the respondent Om Prakash mahendra and being aggrieved after making proper protest before the Naib Tahsildar, amarpatan who passed an order against the petitioner, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 133a/2004 before the First Civil Judge, class II. Amarpatan, District Satna on 6-12-2004 for declaration and perpetual injunction alongwith the application for temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to protect the special species of mango trees planted by him. The petitioner's application for temporary injunction was refused by the Trial court by order dated 8-2-2005 (Annexure p/2 ). The petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track court) Amarpatan, District Satna registered as Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 10/2005 which also dismissed the appeal by the order dated 29-7-2005 (Annexure P/1) impugned in this petition. ( 3 ) CONSIDERING the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate court below. Both the Courts below have observed that there was no evidence produced to demonstrate that the trees belonged to the petitioner at the time of partition between the brothers neither there was any right and titled vested in the petitioner. Both the Courts below have observed that there was no evidence produced to demonstrate that the trees belonged to the petitioner at the time of partition between the brothers neither there was any right and titled vested in the petitioner. The Appellate Court has correctly observed that Section 8 of the Transfer of Property act, 1980 reads as under : "8. Operation of transfer : Unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof. Such incidents include, where the property is land, the easements annexed thereto, the rents and profits thereof accruing after the transfer, and all things attached to the earth". And so also under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 "attached to the earth" means : (a) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs; and hence relying on the said provisions of law the Appellate Court by stating that since the trees were transferred alongwith the said lands by means of a registered sale deed the presumption of law was in favour of the defendant that the trees had been transferred as being attached to the earth and on perusal of the sale deed the trees do not find any separate mention. Neither was any evidence produced to that effect. So also in the execution of the sale deed the petitioner Narayan Prasad Pandey had participated actively. Then in the absence of any categoric condition regarding trees it could not be held that the trees belonged to the petitioner or were being looked after him and were not being transferred to the respondent at the stage of granting of temporary injunction and no right vested in the petitioner to claim the same. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has also relied on Kundan v. 1st Additional District judge, Bulandshahr, AIR 1990 Allahabad 121 whereby the Court held that when there was an agreement to sell land and saplings existed on the land on the date of agreement - non-mention of saplings in agreement to sell indicative of fact that the saplings were not intended to be sold. Trees would not go with the land. Trees would not go with the land. The matter in the said case was regarding interpretation of agreement to sell whereas in the present case as observed by the Appellate Court the matter pertains to sale of land by registered sale deed. But so also I find that in the case of Vishwa Nath and others v. Ramraj and others, AIR 1991 allahabad 193 the same Court while interpreting Section 3 and 8 of the Transfer of property Act 1882 has held that : "there may be presumption that when land is transferred, all things attached to the earth, such as trees and shrubs, are also transferred alongwith the land in view of the provisions of Section 8 and 3 of the Act. But there can be no presumption vice versa i. e. in the case when there was a transfer of trees standing on land inference could not be drawn that land was also transferred alongwith the trees. " ( 5 ) HENCE in the present petition the Court has arrived at a correct conclusion at the stage of the suit. No case for grant of temporary injunction is made out. The presumption regarding the registered sale deed read with the provisions of the Registration Act and Section 8 and 3 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 clearly stand in favour of the respondent. I do not find it fit to interfere with the orders passed by the Court below at this stage. ( 6 ) THE petition is dismissed as sans merit. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .