Regular Second Appeal No. 1298 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1298 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 12, 2008 State of Haryana and Others .....APPELLANTS VERSUS Nathi Ram .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr A.K.Rathee, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. T.P.S .MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent was decreed by learned trial Court. Appeal was, thereafter, filed by the appellants, which was dismissed by learned first appellate Court. They have now filed the present appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Admittedly, the land on which trees had been planted belonged to the plaintiff-respondent. It is not the case of the defendants- appellants that the trees in question had not been planted by the plaintiff, but by them or at their instance. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff- respondent had every right to restrain the defendants from cutting and removing the trees. The only ground pleaded by the defendants so as to oppose the claim of the plaintiff was that the land of the plaintiff fell within the protected forest and the trees grown on it stood enumerated. Even Regular Second Appeal No. 1298 of 2008 -2- notification Ex.D-2 had been issued in that regard. I am afraid if the defendants can lay any claim to the trees, which had been planted by the plaintiff-respondent and that too on his own land. Even if the defendants' plea is accepted that the trees were planted by them or at their instance, the ownership of the trees would still remain with that of the owner of the land. The concurrent findings arrived at by learned Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence led by the parties. These findings cannot be disturbed in a second appeal. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants, arises for determination. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed. (T.P.S.MANN) May 12, 2008. JUDGE Pds