Kamla Kuar vs Nathan - 1891 Supreme(All) 15

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1891 Supreme(All) 15

Kamla Kuar – Appellant
Versus
Nathan – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Sir John Edge, Kt., C.J., and Knox, J. - This is a reference by the late Officiating Judge of Sahranpur. The plaintiffs were zamindars. The defendants were two occupancy tenants of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought this suit alleging a right to the fallen wood of a pipal tree, which, as we gather from the reference, had grown within the occupancy-holding of the defendants. It is stated, and we must take it to be the fact, that the tree was not planted by the zamndrs or by the tenants, and that it was a self-planted tree. The question which we are asked is, "does the burden of proving the right to fallen wood in the case of self-grown trees in an occupancy tenant's holding fall on the landlord or on the tenant?" We have been referred to several authorities, but none of them appear to us to apply to a case like this. The case of Dhian Singh Vs. Deoki Nandan, (1886) ILR (All) 467 does not apply. That was a case in which the landlord claimed a right to cut down and remove fruit bearing trees which were growing on his tenant's holding. That, apart from special custom or contract, he clearly could not have a right to do. The other cases do not relate to self-grown wood. On b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document