BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 16/09/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN
W.P.(MD)Nos.4409 to 4414 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2009
and 2 of 2009
Mujeeb Rahman ... Petitioner in W.P.4409 of 2009
T.Lukman ... Petitioner in W.P.4410 of
2009
Pallipattu Thomban Riyad ... Petitioner in W.P.4411 of 2009
Mujeeb Rahman ... Petitioner in W.P.4412 of 2009
T.Lukman ... Petitioner in W.P.4413 of
2009
Pallipattu Thomban Riyad ... Petitioner in W.P.4414 of 2009
Vs
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Collectorate Building,
Dindigul.
2.The District Forest Officer,
Dindigul District,
Collectorate Buildings,
Dindigul.
3.The Ranger,
Dindigul District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul District.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Agricultural Department,
In-charge of Soil Consideration, Dindigul District.
6.The Personal Assistant to the
The District Collector,
Dindigul..
7.Vijayakumar
8.M.V.Murugan
9.Pandianathan Baskaran ... Respondents
Prayer in W.P(MD)Nos.4409 to 4411 of 2009: Writ Petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a
writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to invoke the Rule 10 of the
Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957 to cancel the cutting
order issued by the 1st respondent dated 04.02.2009 S.R.No.29/08/E3, and
consequently order, dated 16.02.2009 (internal communication between the 2nd and
3rd respondent) in S.C.No.7159/2008-D and 7153/08D passed by the 2nd respondent
and the order of the 2.3.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent in S.C.No.7159/2008/D
and 7153/08/D in favour of the 8th respondent in pandrimalai village Authoor
Taluk, Dindigul District in S.No.835/24 to an extent of 121.29 Acres based on
the appeal submitted by the petitioners before them.
Prayer in W.P(MD)Nos.4412 to 4414 of 2009: Writ Petition has been filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a
writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to invoke the Rule 10 of the
Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957 to cancel the cutting
order issued by the 1st respondent dated 04.02.2009 S.R.No.29/08/E3, and
consequently order, dated 16.02.2009 (internal communication between the 2nd and
3rd respondent) in S.C.No.7159/2008-D and 7153/08D passed by the 2nd respondent
and the order of the 2.3.2009 passed by the 3rd respondent in S.C.No.7159/2008/D
and 7153/08/D in favour of the 8th respondent in pandrimalai village Authoor
Taluk, Dindigul District in S.No.836/2 to an extent of 21.33 Acres based on the
appeal submitted by the petitioners before them dated 18.05.2009.
!For Petitioner ... M/r.V.R.Venkatesan.
^For Respondents 1 to 6 ... Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondents No.7 & 8 ... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
For 9th respondent ... Mr.T.A.Ebenasan
:COMMON ORDER
Heard both sides.
2.In the above six writ petitions, common facts and law are involved and
the respondents are also common in all the writ petitions and hence, with the
consent of both parties, all the writ petitions were taken together for final
disposal.
3.The properties in Survey Nos.835/31 acres 1.29 cents, S.No.784/143C-
acre 11.52 cents, S.No.835/15- acre 19.72 cents, S.No.835/19 – acre 17.31
cents, S.No.835/24- acre 121.29 cents, S.No.836/2 – acre 21.33 cents, S.No.641-
acre 7.51 cents, S.No.646- acre 5.64 cents, S.No.774- acare 5.85 cents,
S.No.775- acre 8.74 cents, S.No.784/8C- acre 13.01 cents, S.No.784/8B acre 37.05
cents, S.No.784/8D- acre 12.99 cents, S.No.784/14D- acre 12.01 cents at
Pandrimalai and in Manalur village in S.No.195/2- acre 3.98 cents, S.No.200-acre
1.39 cents, of a total extent of 336.37 acres situate at Pandrimalai and in
Manalur village belonged to the 9th respondent.
4.It is admitted that the properties are estate lands with trees and the
petitioners, in all the cases, entered into an agreement of sale with the
original owner viz., the 9th respondent, for the sale of lands, by agreement,
dated 30.08.2008 and as per the agreement of sale, 339 acres situate in various
survey Numbers mentioned above, were agreed to be sold for valid consideration
of Rs.50,000/- per acre and as per the agreement, the petitioners have also
agreed to purchase the properties for the said purchase price, immediately free
from all encumbrance. Therefore, supplementary agreement has been entered into
between the petitioners and the 9th respondent, dated 27.11.2008 and thereafter,
a registered sale deed was also executed by the 9th respondent in favour of the
petitioners on 09.03.2009 conveying various items of properties stated therein.
5.According to the petitioners, they have purchased not only the lands,
but also the trees grown on that lands. It is the further case of the
petitioners that later they came to know on 16.06.2008 that the 9th respondent
had entered into an agreement with the 7th respondent for the sale of trees in
respect of trees grown in Survey Nos.835/24 and 836/2 and on 15.07.2008, the 9th
respondent also gave a registered power of attorney in favour of the 8th
respondent, authorising him to cut the trees grown on those lands and apply for
getting necessary permits from the respondents 2 and 3 and without disclosing
the earlier agreement of sale entered into by the 9th respondent with the 7th
respondent, a sale deed was executed by the 9th respondent in favour of the
petitioners.
6.Further, the 7th respondent applied for the grant of permits from the
respondents 1 and 2 for cutting the trees, in pursuance to the agreement and on
04.02.2009, an order was issued by the first respondent in favour of the 8th
respondent, who is the power agent of the 7th respondent and on 02.03.2009, an
order was passed by the 2nd respondent in respect of trees grown in Survey
No.836/2 and 835/24 respectively. According to the petitioners, as per the sale
deed, dated 09.03.2009, the petitioners became the absolute owners of the landed
properties, which includes trees and therefore, the respondents 7 and 8 have no
right to cut and remove the trees as per the agreement of sale entered into with
the 9th respondent. On coming to know of the cutting order given by the
respondents 1 and 2, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the District
Collector/ 1st respondent and before the 2nd respondent under Rule 10 of the
Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Prevention of Trees) Rules 1957 and a show cause notice
was given by the 2nd respondent to the 7th respondent why the cutting order
should not be cancelled and thereafter, no action has been taken by the
respondents 1 and 2.
7.It is further stated in the affidavit that the 7th respondent filed a
suit O.S.No.100 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Dindigul, against the 9th
respondent and Thiru.Mujeeb Rahman, who is the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.4409 &
4412 of 2009, restraining them, preventing the plaintiff in that, suit from
cutting and removing the trees from the suit properties, as per the agreement,
dated 16.06.2008 and in that suit,all the petitioners herein, were not parties,
except the petitioner in W.P.(MD)Nos.4409 & 4412 of 2009 and an injunction order
was granted by the Sub Court, Dindigul and that was under challenge in
C.M.A.No.1 of 2009, on the file of the District Court, Dindigul and the same is
pending before the District Court, Dindigul. As the petitioners have purchased
the properties in pursuance to the agreement of sale, dated 30.08.2008 and
27.11.2008, the petitioners have become the owners of the properties, which
includes the trees grown on that properties and therefore, the 7th respondent,
by suppressing the agreement of sale, got the cutting order issued by the
respondents 1 and 2 on 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 and as the 7th respondent has
suppressed the material facts about the agreement of sale and subsequent sale
deed, the respondents 1 and 2 are having power to cancel the permission and
though a show cause notice has been given by the 2nd respondent, no further
action has been taken and in these circumstance, the petitioners filed the above
writ petitions, directing respondents 1 and 2 to invoke the Rule 10 of the Tamil
Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957 and to cancel the cutting
order, dated 04.02.2009 issued by the 1st respondent and the order, dated
02.03.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent.
8.The respondents 7 and 8 have filed the counter affidavit stating that
the 7th respondent entered into an agreement of sale for cutting all the trees
found in Survey Nos.835/24 and 836/2, of an extent of 142 acres and a registered
power of attorney was given by the 9th respondent in favour of the 8th
respondent, directing the 8th respondent to cut and remove the trees and to
apply for necessary permission from the respondents 1 and 2 for cutting the
trees and on the basis of the agreement of general power, the 8th respondent has
applied for permit on 06.08.2008 seeking permission from the respondents 1 and 2
and permission was granted on 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009, much before the sale
deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners by the 9th respondent and
therefore, the petitioners have no right to question the right of the
respondents 7 and 8 to cut and remove the trees and as the respondents 7 and 8
took steps to cut and remove the trees, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4412 of
2009 prevented them and hence, the CMA was filed in CMA.No.1 of 2009 and that is
pending before the District Court, Dindigul and the petitioners have no right to
challenge the order of the respondents 1 and 2 and if they are aggrieved by the
order of the respondents, they will have to establish their right, by filing
necessary suits, in the civil courts and they have no right to seek the writ of
mandamus as prayed for in these writ petitions.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.V.R.Venkatesan,
contended that admittedly, the respondents 7 and 8 have not cut and remove the
trees as per the agreement, dated 16.06.2008. By virtue of the sale deed, dated
09.03.2009, the landed properties were sold to the petitioners by the 9th
respondent and under those sale deeds not only the lands but also the trees,
which are attached to earth are also presumed to have been sold to the
petitioners and hence, the 7th respondent cannot claim any right over the trees,
by virtue of the agreement of sale in his favour, in respect of trees, having
regard to the fact that the lands were sold before the trees were cut down by
the respondents 7 and 8.
10.Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
further submitted that as per Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, Unless
a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of
property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the
transferor is then capable of passing in the property in the legal incidents
thereof.
Such incidents include, where the property is land, the easements annexed
thereto, the rents and profits thereof accruing after the transfer, and all
things attached to the earth.
11.Further as per interpretion clause 3 of the said Act, ” attached to the
earth” means- (a) rooted in the earth, as in the case of trees and shrubs;
b.imbedded in the earth, as in the case of walls or buildings; or c. attached to
what is so imbedded for the permanent beneficial enjoyment of that to which it
is attached.
Therefore, contended that after the execution of the sale deed in their favour,
the title to the trees also transferred to them and hence, the respondents 7 and
8 cannot claim any right over the trees. Therefore, he contended that the
respondents 1 and 2 should not have issued the impugned orders in favour of the
respondents 7 and 9 as they have no right to the trees.
12.Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
also relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1968
AIR 612, in the case of Divisional Forest Officer, Sarahan Forest Division of
Simla Forest Circle, Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Daut and others, wherein
it has been stated in para 6, there can be no doubt that trees are capable of
being transferred apart from land, and if a person transfer trees or gives a
right to a person to cut trees and remove them it cannot be said that he has
transferred land. But we are concerned with a different question and the
question is whether under S.11 of the Act trees are included within the
expression “right”, title and interest of the land-owner in the land of the
tenancy”. It seems to us that this expression “right, title and interest of the
landowner in the land” is wide enough to include trees standing on the land. It
is clear that under S.8 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless a different
intention is expressed or implied, transfer of land would include trees standing
on it. It seems to us that we should construe S.11 in the same manner.
and also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1991 ALLAHABAD 193 in the case
of Vishwa Nath and others vs. Ramraj and others, wherein it has been held that
there may be a presumption that when land is transferred, all things attached to
the earth, such as trees and shrubs, are also transferred along with the land in
view of the provisions of Section 8 read with S.3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882. But there can be no presumption in a case vice versa.
13.On the other-hand, Mr.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 7 and 8 contended that after the agreement of sale entered into, by
the 9th respondent with the 7th respondent, the 9th respondent ceased to be the
owner of the trees and hence, what has been conveyed by the 9th respondent to
the petitioners are the landed properties alone without trees as the trees have
already been sold to the 7th respondent.
14.He further submitted that immediately after the agreement of sale and
the general power of attorney, executed by the 9th respondent, the respondents 7
and 8 applied for permit on 06.08.2008 and after conducting various enquiries
and obtaining reports from the various officers, orders were passed on
04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 by the 2nd and 3rd respondents for cutting the trees
and hence, there is no infirmity in the cutting order passed. Further, on the
date of passing of the cutting order, the sale deeds were not executed by the
9th respondent in favour of the petitioners and an agreement of sale in respect
of the immovable properties does not create any interest in the immovable
properties and hence, on 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009, the petitioners have no
right over the trees even assuming that under that sale deeds trees were also
conveyed to the petitioners. Therefore, he contended that on the date of passing
of cutting order, the 7th respondent was the lawful owner of the trees, by
virtue of agreement of sale and hence, the cutting orders cannot be challenged.
15.He further brought to my notice, the various provisions of the Tamil
Nadu Hill Areas( Preservation of Trees) Rules 1957. As per Section 3 of the said
Act, no person shall be cut or fall or remove any tree except as per rule
framed in that act and under Rule 10 permission granted can be cancelled or
modified if the committee has reason to believe that any person to whom
permission was granted furnished the particulars which are materially incorrect
or has contravened any provisions of these rules or the conditions subject to
which permission was granted. As the respondents 7 and 8 did not contravene any
of the rules or have not suppressed any material particulars, the permission
cannot be cancelled or modified.
16.Mr.M.Ajmahl Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7
and 8 also brought to my notice the recitals in the agreement, dated 27.11.2008
between the 9th respondent and the petitioners, wherein it has been stated that
the possession has been handed over for limited purpose of residing and to do
the work of removing the shrubs in the estate and Mr.Mujeeb Rahman, who is the
agreement holder or his servants were not permitted to cut the valuable trees
from the estate. Relying on that passage in that agreement, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted that it has
been specifically provided that trees should be cut only by the petitioners as
per the agreement and therefore, what has been sold to the petitioners is
actually the lands and not trees, and in any event, as the 7th respondent has
purchased the trees and entered into agreement, he is entitled to remove the
trees and the subsequent sale deed in favour of the petitioners will not have
the effect of preventing the 7th respondent from cutting the trees.
17.Before going into the power of the respondents 1 and 2 to cancel or
modify the cutting order, we will have to see what is the effect of the sale
deeds in favour of the petitioners and whether under the sale deeds, the trees
were also conveyed along with the lands, by virtue of section 8 of the Transfer
of Property Act, and if so, will it prevent the 7th respondent from cutting the
trees.
18.No doubt under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, Unless the
different intention is expressed or necessarily implied, a transfer of property
passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is then
capable of passing in the property and in the legal incidents thereof, which
includes all place attached to the earth. Therefore, as per the above section,
under a transfer of property, all the interest, which the transferor is then
capable of passing in the property will be transferred.
19.As rightly contended by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 7 and 8 that earlier to the date of the sale deed, the 7th
respondent had entered into an agreement of sale for cutting of trees in two
survey numbers and therefore, while executing the sale deed the transferor has
no right to convey the trees, as he had already sold to the 7th respondent and
he was not capable of transferring the trees on 09.03.2009. Therefore, it was
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8,
Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, that under the sale deed, the trees could not have been
transferred.
20.To appreciate the contention of Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents 7 and 8, we will have to ascertain whether under
the sale deed, dated 09.03.2009, the 9th respondent sold the lands as well as
the trees to the petitioners. Though the petitioners entered into an agreement
of sale deeds, dated 30.08.2008 and 27.11.2008, under those agreements, they
cannot claim any interest in the immovable properties and if at all they can
claim any interest in the immovable properties they can do so only under the
sale deed, dated 09.03.2009.
21.In a case where the vendor purports to have sold the entire properties
but actually there is some deficiencies either in respect of area or estate or
right, the rights of the purchaser, has been stated by Darts in his book- “On
vendors and purchasers” (8th edition)Vol. I, page 565 as follows: “The purchaser
will be entitled to compensation for a deficiency in quantity even though the
estate is not sold professedly by measurement”.
” In Williams on Vendor and Purchaser (4th Edition page 725 it is stated
as follows:
“The purchaser therefore, is as a rule entitled if it turns that there is a
mere deficiency whether of area, estate or right and whether substantial or not
between the property described in the contract and that offered in fulfilment,
thereof to enforce the specific performance of the contract, taking such
interest in the property sold as the vendor has and receiving compensation for
the deficiency. For example where a vendor described the land sold as
containing a much greater quantity than its actual area, he was obliged at the
purchaser’s suit to convey what estate he had and to allow compensation for the
deficiency”.
22.Further in Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol.29, paragraph 669, is as
follows: “After completion of the contract, the transaction is at an end as
between vendor and purchaser and as a general rule, no action either at law or
in equity can be maintained by either party against the other for damages or
compensation on account of errs as to quantity or quality of the property sold
unless such error amounts to a breach of some contract, or warranty contained in
the conveyance itself, or unless some fraud has been practised by the
purchaser.”
23.The above passages were discussed in the judgment reported in 1951(2)
MLJ page 611 in the case of M.Delli Gramani and another vs. C.R.Ramachandran and
in that case it has been held that in the absence of fraud on the part of the
vendor in case of deficiency of property conveyed under the sale deed and where
specific boundaries were given the purchaser has no right to claim compensation.
24.Further as per Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the rights
and liabilities of buyers and seller have been stated and as per Section
55(1)(a) the seller is bound to disclose to the buyer any material defect in
the property or in the seller’s title thereto, of which the seller is, and the
buyer is not, aware, and which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover:
25.Further, it is stated in the said section that any omission to make
such disclosures as are mentioned under section para 1 clause (a) and para (5)
clause (5) is fraudulent. As per section 55(1)(a) when the seller did not
disclose any material defect in the property which buyer is not aware of and
could not with ordinary care discover, the same can be treated as fraudulent
one.
26.In this case, according to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr.V.R.Venkatesan, they are not aware of the agreement of sale in
respect of the trees entered into between the 9th respondent and the 7th
respondent and had they known the same, they would not have entered into the
sale transactions by paying huge consideration and hence, fraud has been
committed on them.
27.Though, it is not necessary for me, to go into the aspect of fraud
alleged to have been committed on the petitioners by the 9th respondent, having
regard to limited purpose of arriving at a decision, whether the petitioners are
entitled to relief prayed for on the ground that the permits were obtained by
suppressing the material particulars by the 7th respondent, I have to give a
finding what is the nature of property that was conveyed under the sale deed,
dated 09.03.2009 and whether it includes the trees also .
28.Admittedly, in the sale deed, there is no mention about the trees. As
contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, trees attached
to the earth are also immovable properties and hence, they ought to have been
mentioned as they have their own value. Under Section 27 of the Indian Stamp
Act –
“The consideration and all other facts and circumstances affecting the
chargeability of any instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which
it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein”.
29.Admittedly, the trees have got potential values and therefore, while
executing the sale deeds, if the trees are also conveyed, it must have been
mentioned and value of the trees must have been stated in the instrument of
sale.
30.It is further evident by Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention
of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968, wherein it has been stated that in
any instrument, number of items of property, the market value of each of the
items shall be specified separately.
31.Rule 5 deals with the principles of determination of market value and
as a matter of fact in the sale deed dated 09.03.2009 declaration has been made
by the 9th respondent about the nature of properties, which were sold and a
perusal of that statement given under Rule 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp
(Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968, would make it clear
that, market value was arrived at only for the lands and no value has been fixed
for the trees grown on the lands.
32.Thus, it is made clear that under the sale deed, dated.09.03.2009, only
the lands were sold. This is fortified by the fact that even on 16.06.2008, the
9th respondent has sold the right of cutting trees in favour of the 7th
respondent.
33.Further the 9th respondent has executed a registered power of attorney
in favour of the 8th respondent on 15.07.2008, wherein it has been specifically
stated that the power has been given for cutting trees marked and to get
necessary permission from the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, if the
petitioners are prudent persons they would have applied for encumbrance, while
ascertaining the right of the 9th respondent to convey the property and they
would have found out that already the trees were sold. Therefore, from these
facts, prima facie it is made clear that what has been sold under the sale
deeds and only the lands not trees.
34.Further, even admitting the case of the petitioners that they have
purchased the properties on the basis of representation given by the 9th
respondent that along with the lands, trees were also conveyed and later they
came to know that even earlier to that, the trees were sold by the 9th
respondent to the 7th respondent, it can be inferred that fraud has been
committed on the petitioners by the 9th respondent by making false
representation without disclosing the earlier agreement of sale of trees and in
that event, the petitioners are only entitled to file the suit for damages and
they have no right to challenge the cutting orders granted by the respondents 1
and 2.
35.According to me, under Rule 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hills (Preservation of
of Trees)1957, permission can be cancelled only when the person whom permission
was granted and gave a materially incorrect or has contravened any provisions of
these rules the conditions subject to which the permission was granted and in
this case, it cannot be stated that the respondents 7 and 8 have suppressed the
particulars, while obtaining the permission or violated any condition subject to
the permission was granted. Hence, the permission orders issued by the
respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents 7 and 8 cannot be challenged by
the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the facts that the 9th
respondent has committed fraud on them, it is always open to them to file
necessary suits claiming compensation and if any suit is filed, the suit without
being influenced any of the observations made in these writ petition, the same
shall be disposed on the basis of the evidence and pleadings by the learned
Judge.
36.In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, it was
represented by Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 7 and 8 that they are not able to cut and remove the trees by reason
of the injunction order passed in these writ petitions and the cutting orders
permitted the respondents 7 and 8 to cut and remove the trees only upto
07.09.2009 and in the event of the writ petitions are dismissed, direction may
be issued to the respondents 2 and 3 to extend the period to enable the
respondents 7 and 8 to cut and remove the above trees.
37.As the writ petitions are dismissed, the respondents 2 and 3 are
directed to grant sufficient time to the respondents 7 and 8 to cut and remove
the trees, as per the cutting orders, dated 04.02.2009 and 02.03.2009 issued by
the respondents 2 and 3 respectively, in favour of the respondents 7 and 8.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
er
To,
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District,
Collectorate Building,
Dindigul.
2.The District Forest Officer,
Dindigul District,
Collectorate Buildings,
Dindigul.
3.The Ranger,
Dindigul District.
4.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul District.
5.The Executive Engineer,
Agricultural Department,
In-charge of Soil Consideration,
Dindigul District.
6.The Personal Assistant to the
The District Collector,
Dindigul..
7.The Additional Government Pleader,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.