JUDGMENT

Dalal, J. - In my opinion both the subordinate Courts have gone wrong. As usually happens in villages, a mendicant (Sadhu) had his kuti (hut) inside a grove. The zamindar permitted this because of religious associations connected with the Sadhu. Subsequently the Sadhu's disciple another Sadhu disappeared from the village and the plaintiff sued the defendants for ejectment from the land. The defendants are Kalwars, who alleged that they had purchased the kuti for Rs. 50 by an oral sale from Dangir and claimed to be the owners of the land in consequence. There is a finding of fact in favour of the sale, though there is no deed and the evidence in support is not of any value. That finding is binding on this Court. It must, therefore, be taken as proved that Dangir sold the kuti to the defendants for Rs. 50. Dangir had no right to do so.

2. It was argued that Dangir was owner of a grove and a grove can be transferred. It is true that a grove can be transferred but not the land of the grove. A grove means trees standing on land. A grove-holder has a right to enjoy the fruit of the trees standing in the grove, and such right of enjoyment he may transfer to another. He cannot, howe