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, however, transfer the land after the trees have fallen or have been cut away. In the present case it is admitted that no trees stand on plot 250, on which the defendants are building a house. Practically what the defendants claim is that Dangir was owner of the land and could sell the land to them. No question of a grove-holder arises in a case like the present. Dangir's predecessor was permitted to put up the kuti by the zemindar by way of a license. Two Sadhus were permitted to live there one after the other. Such license is not transferable. When Dangir left the village the license came to an end. Dangir's case is not different from that of any ryot in the village permitted by the zamindar to occupy a house. The site of the house would belong to the zamindar, and neither the right of occupation of the house nor the site can be transferred by a ryot. The Sadhus were no better than ryots of the zamindar and had no better rights. Such was the case in Wahida Khatun v. Bulaqi Das [1906] 3 A.L.J. 335. No trees stood on the land in that case, and the land was transferred as a grove to one Bulaqi, who sued the zamindar for possession. The suit was decreed by the subordinate Courts, but this Court set aside the decree holding that the grove-holders after the trees were cut had no right which they could transfer, and that Bulaqi Das, therefore, could and did acquire no rights whatever in the lands by its purchase. Defendants have no right to possession of the land or to construct a house thereon.

3. In the result I decree the appeal and the suit of the plaintiff with costs of all the Courts. The plaintiff is decreed possession of the site of the house detailed in the plaint after the demolition of the constructions made thereon. Defendants are given two months from to-day's date to remove their materials. If they fail to do so, they shall be taken down by the plaintiff at the defendants' expense.