JUDGMENT
1. This is a Letters Patent appeal by the defendants against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court granting an injunction against the defendant. The plaintiffs brought a suit as zemidars against the defendant No 1 Ganga Earn, as grove holder, alleging that defendant No. 1 had let portions of his grove to defendant No. 2 for cultivation and had also cut down old trees in his grove and planted new trees. The reliefs asked for were that the Court should order the defendants to remove the newly planted trees and to give the plaintiffs possession over the whole area of the grove and if the relief of possession be not granted' to forbid the defendants to carry on cultivation in the aforesaid land and not to interfere with the plaintiffs' cultivation. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the action of the grove-holder in letting land for Cultivation was not illegal, and finding that the land retained its character of grove although certain portions were cultivated. The learned single Judge of this Court held that the grove-holders had no right to cultivate the land, and that the land had not lost the character of grove, and he granted an injunction "preventing the defendants, after the present crops are reaped, from ever sowing or cultivating for agricultural purposes the land of the plot in suit."
2. We consider that in accordance with the principle laid down in Mahbub Ali v. Chhiddan 95 Ind. Cas. 291 : 24 A.L.J. 599 : A.I.R. 1926 All. 519 : L.R. 7 A. 268 Rev., it is not illegal for a grove-holder to cultivate portions of the land of his grove. We may note that as an injunction relates to the future, reference also be made to the existing law on the Subject of grove-holders; which is contained in Chapter XII of the Tenancy Act of 1926.' In Section 197 (d) it is laid down that a grove-holder may sub-let the whole or any portion of his grove land, and in Sub-section (f) it is recognised that crops may be grown under and among the trees of a grove because the land-holder is entitled to realise his rent by distress of such crops. 'Accordingly, we consider that the lower Appellate Court was correct in dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs, and we allow this Letters Patent Appeal with costs of both hearings in this Court and set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court.
3. In regard to the cross-objection which was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents, following the principle of Kausalia v. Gulab Kuar 21 A. 297 : A.W.N. (1899) 72, we hold that no cross-objection can be taken in a Letters Patent Appeal. We dismiss the cross-objection, therefore, with costs.