The question in this Second Appeal is whether trees of spontaneous growth on leasehold property belong to the landholder or the tenant.

The facts that give rise to the aforesaid question may be stated. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit land which is a tank bed in an estate. He leased it for a period of five years to defendants 1 and 2 under a deed, dated 22nd August, 1939, for grazing purposes. During the period of tenancy, there was spontaneous growth of babul trees on the land. Nine of thern were cut by the defendants shortly before the filing of the suit. The question is who is the owner of the trees, whether it is. the landholder or the tenant?

Both the Courts found that the said babul trees were of spontaneous growth during the period of the tenancy and that the ownership of the said trees is in the landholder. On these findings a decree for an injunction was granted restraining the defendants from cutting the babul trees and also for recovery of the fuel of the trees cut by him. The defendants preferred the above Second Appeal.

The short question in the appeal is whether the landholder or the tenant is the.owner of trees of spontaneous growth during the period o