1. Act 1 of 1964 was not in force when the suit was brought; the suit was not once stayed under any of the enactments mentioned under s. 132 (i) (a) of the act so that there is no question of that provision
applying to make the provisions of the act applicable to the suit; the overriding effect given to the: provisions of the act by s. 127 thereof does not have the effect of making those provisions retrospective in operation; and, Therefore, The court below was right in holding that the suit had to be decided in accordance with the law in force at the time it was brought which, In the absence of provision express or implied to the contrary, Is the normal rule and that the appellant defendant tenants were not entitled to the benefit of s. 52 (2) of the act which they claimed. All that apart, It was the admitted case in both courts though the language of the lease deed, Ext. A - 1, Probably does not go to that extent that the disputed trees were excluded from the lease; and, That being the contractual provision, S. 52 (2) which does not say that it is to prevail notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, Cannot confer any right on the defendant tenants in respect of those trees.
2. I dismiss this appeal with costs. Dismissed.