JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiffs are occupancy tenants of the defendant zemindar and combined together to bring a declaratory suit on the basis of a common right which they claimed, that the zemindar was not entitled to cut kikar trees standing on their occupancy land. They did not claim ownership of the trees. What they claimed was that so long as their occupation of the land lasted and they were not ejected from the land, the zemindar was not entitled to come on to their occupancy land and get the trees cut. The declaration desired was in these terms.

2. "A decree may be passed by the Court and it may be declared that the defendant zemindar had no right to sell any trees standing on the boundary walls appertaining to or situate in the plaintiffs' occupancy holding or to get it cut so long as the relation of zemindar and tenant subsisted between them, without the permission and consent of the occupancy tenants." A perpetual injunction was desired in the same terms.

3. The defence was that it was the recognised right of the zemindar to cut trees growing on land held by the zemindar's tenants as of occupancy holdings. The question, therefore, is whether such a right existed. The lower Appell