Mushtaq Ahmad, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff' appeal in a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants (zamindars) from interfering with the plaintiffs' right of fishing in a pond No. 232 and also for Rs. 50 as damages. The plaintiffs claimed the relief as tenants of the pond.
(2.) IN defence it was pleaded that the plaintiffs had not been the tenants of the pond nor had they any right to fish in the same. The issue of tenancy was referred to the revenue court which found it in favour of the plaintiffs, namely that they were tenants. Following the above finding the trial court decreed the suit except for damages, holding that the plaintiffs had a right to fish in the pond in dispute, as fishing was one of the varieties of products of 'land' within the meaning of the UP Tenancy Act.
(3.) ON appeal by the plaintiffs and cross -objection by the defendants, the lower appellate court reversed the above decree and dismissed the entire suit on the finding that fish not being an yield .of "land" within the meaning of the said Act, the plaintiffs could not claim themselves to be tenants of the pond in suit.;