JUDGMENT

Harries, J. - This is a plaintiffs' second appeal against a decree of the lower Appellate Court confirming a decree of the Court of first instance dismissing the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiff appellants Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and others brought this suit against the defendant-respondents Nazir Ahmad and others to recover a sum of Rs. 135-10-0 as damages for the wrongful reproval of crops from a holding from which the defendants had been ordered to be ejected. The lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the crops in question could be cut and removed by the defendants and that being so, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. It is against that decision that this present appeal has been preferred.

2. The defendants who had been tenants of the plaintiffs had failed to pay the rent due for their holding for some time and consequently the plaintiffs had brought a suit in the Revenue Court for arrears of rent and had obtained a decree for the same. Later, the plaintiffs had taken proceedings under Sections 79 and 80, Agra Tenancy Act, and on November 18, 1929, an order for ejectment of the defendants was passed. On November 29, 1929, the execution Court ordered that an order for delivery of possession to the plaintiffs be issued in pursuance of the order of November 18, 1929, which was to be executed. In the meantime the tenants had applied for a review of the order of ejectment, to which I have referred, and on December 14, 1929, the execution Court ordered the amin to return the process to the Court without executing the same. It was, further provided in this order that the execution proceedings would be carried out after the review proceedings had been deposed of. In due course the application for review of the order of ejectment was heard, and on August 28, 1930, it was dismissed. On August 29, 1930, the amin was again ordered to execute the order for ejectment and on August 30, 1930, the plaintiffs obtained possession. It is admitted that the crops in question were sown by the tenants after the order for ejectment was passed consequent upon the decree for the arrears of rent due. During the period in which execution was stayed, the crops had grown but had not been cut by August 30, 1930, when possession was delivered to the plaintiffs. The defendants, however, entered upon the land and cut and removed these crops. It was in respect of this removal of the crops that the present proceedings were brought. Section 97 (2), Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, deals with the respective rights of the landlord and tenant with respect to ungathered crops or other products sown or planted by a tenant after the date of the order for execution of a decree or order for ejectment. The sub-section is in these terms:

If on the date of actual delivery of possession to the landholder there are upon the land ungathered crops or other products sown or planted by the tenant after the date of the order for execution of the decree or order for ejectment without the permission in writing of the landholder the tenant shall have no right in such crops and the title to them shall pass to the landholder with the land.

3. It is common ground that the crops in question were sown after the order for ejectment was passed pursuant to the decree for arrears of rent and the appellants contend that as such was the case the defendants were not entitled to the crops in question. According to the appellants any crops sown by a tenant after the date of an order for execution of a decree or the date of an order for ejectment belong to the landlord unless of course such crops were sown with the latter's written permission. On the other hand, the respondents contend that crops sown even without the permission of the landlord after the date of an order for ejectment belong to the tenant and that the sub-section only governs the rights of the parties to crops sown after the date of an order for execution of an order for ejectment.

4. Section 93 (1), Agra Tenancy Act, provides