1. At a partition in the revenue Court two plots of land Nos. 196 and 197 in village Sehroi were allotted to the defendants. The defendants were recorded as owners of the grove. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the present suit in the civil Court that the defendants' names were wrongly entered to the prejudice of the plaintiffs' title against the grove numbers, and the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs.
2. It may be declared by the Court that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of groves Nos. 196 and 197, and that the defendants have no concern with the aforesaid groves. It will be noticed that in the plaint there was no distinction made between the land and the trees standing on the land. The trial Court in a confused judgment decreed the suit. On appeal the suit was rightly dismissed. It is argued here that what the plaintiffs desired was that they should be declared as owners of the trees. The argument here was in entire conflict with the plaint allegations. It has been held by this Court in Mahammad Sadiq v. Laute Ram [19(SIC)1] 23 All. 291, that trees growing upon land, the subject of partition by the revenue authorities, go with the land and may properly be partitioned along with it by the revenue authorities. The principle of this ruling was followed in Oudh in Narpat v. Gur Prasad  20 O.C. 92, where Mr. Justice Daniels, when a Judge of the Oudh Court held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to disturb a partition of grove-land, the trees as well as the land made by the revenue Court.
3. Mr. Panna Lal argued that the plaintiffs' contention was that the land even before the partition belonged to the defendants, and the plaintiffs were only owners of the trees, and that by the mere allotment of the land there was no consequent allotment of the trees, and the plaintiffs can sue in the civil Court for a declaration that they were owners of the trees. As I have already said, that argument contradicts every one of the assertions in the plaint. The very first para of the plaint says that the plaintiffs, the defendants and their ancestors were co-sharers and zamindars in the village Sehroi, and that at the settlement of l07 F. there was in the aforesaid village a holding entered in khewat No.36, and each co-sharer had a share in that holding. In para 3, it is stated that out of the lands exclusively possessed by the plaintiffs and their ancestors, lands Nos. 196 and 197 were exclusively possessed by the plaintiffs and their ancestors. Then the plaint continues that out of the sir lands exclusively owned by the plaintiffs, their ancestors planted a grove in Nos. 196 and 197; and that the plaintiffs were still in possession of the aforesaid grove. It is difficult to understand how in appeal a case can possibly grow up of lands belonging to the defendants at the time of partition and the trees on the land belonging to the plaintiffs. According to the terms of the plaint the suit was certainly barred by the provisions of Section 233(k), Land Revenue Act, 1901, and I dismiss this appeal with costs.