Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal No. 2041 of 1968. (From the Judgment and Decree dated 2.2.1966 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in First Execu tion Appeal No 5/62). S.N. Prasad	 for the appellant. G.C. Mathur and O.P. Rana for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG	 C.J. This appeal by certificate raises the simple question whether certain trees	 said to be part of a grove	 are included in 34 grove land	 which	 under section 6(a) (i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act	 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vests in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. This very question was raised by the respondent decree holder in the execution proceed ings in this very case	 between the same parties which came to this Court on an earlier occasion. We have perused the judgment of this Court reported in ; 	 in the case. We find that the position taken by the respond ent decree holder then also was that	 after the coming into force of the Act	 what could still be sold in execution of the decree was the right in trees of groves as these contin ued to vest in the intermediary. This Court rejected ' that submission and held that after vesting of all the rights mentioned in. section 6 of the Act in the State of Uttar Pradesh	 new bhumidhari rights came into existence under section 18 of the Act. It also held ' that the only way in which a mortgagee could enforce his right against the mortgage or after the Act came into force is provided in section 6(h) of the Act	 read with section 73 of the 	 so that nothing more than the compensation awarded to the	 intermediary could be proceeded against by the mortgagee. Proceed against by the mortgagee. We are surprised that	 even after that decision which	 according to the aPPellant judgment debtor	 constitutes a complete answer to any further execution proceedings in respect of any part of bhumidhari rights	 execution should have proceeded against trees in groves and the view taken by the execution court	 that there is a distinction between	 trees and a grove and grove land	 should have been upheld by a Division Bench of the Allahabad 'High Court (Lucknow Bench).We find that it is impossible for us to accept this opinion in view of the definition of the intermediary 's grove under section 3(13) of the Act which says "intermediary grove means grove land held or occupied by an intermediary as such". This means that "grove land" and an "intermediary 's groves are equated and groves are on ly collections of trees in plots of land so as to preclude cultivation in them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts of the "land". Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provides that an "intermediary 's grove" is bhumidhari property. Rights in it are part of bhumidhari rights. After these clear words of the enactment. we think it is not necessary even to consider previous definitions or to make out specious or unrealistic distinctions between standing uncut trees	 which are parts of groves	 and groves and grove land. The proposition is well settled	 under the general law	 that trees	 before they are cut	 form parts of 'land '. And	 an inseparable part is always included in the whole. In view of this very clear legal position	 we allow this appeal and set aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court and the Execution Court with costs. S.R. Appeal al lowed.

In Rana Sheo Ambar Singh vs Allahabad Bank Ltd.	 Allaha bad (1962) 2 SCR p.441	 this Court held that the respond ent could not enforce his rights under the mortgage by the sale of the new Bhumidari rights created in favour of the mortgagor by section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act	 1950 and that the respondent could only enforce his rights against the appellant in the manner provided under section 6(h) of the Act read with section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act	 and follow the compensation awarded to the intermediary. Despite this decision having been brought to the notice in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent attachment of the trees in groves belonging to the appellant was ordered by the executing Court taking the view that there is a distinction between the trees and a grove and grove land. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the views of the Executing Court and dismissed the appeal Allowing the appeal by certificate	 the Court	 HELD: (1) The view that there is a distinction between trees and a grove and grove land and	 therefore execution against trees in groves could be proceeded against cannot be accepted in the light of the definition of the intermediary grove under section 3(13) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act	 1950	 viz.	 "intermediary 's grove" means groveland held or occupied by intermediary as such. [34 D E	 H] (2) Groves are only collection of trees in plots of land so as to preclude cultivation in them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts of the land. The proposition is well settled under the general law	 that trees	 before they are cut. form parts of 'land '. And are inseparable part is always included in the whole. [34E F] (3) Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provide that an "inter mediary grove" bhumidary property. Rights in it are parts of bhumidari rights.