Bava Batra 37B

דקמכחשי בארעא ⁠– שיורי שייר. דאי לא שייר, לימא ליה: עקור אילנא וזיל.

since they are causing harm to the land, the seller does leave the land that is surrounding the trees for himself, as if he did not leave it, let the buyer say to him: Uproot your trees and go.

מכר אילנות ושייר קרקע לפניו ⁠– פלוגתא דרבי עקיבא ורבנן; לרבי עקיבא דאמר: מוכר בעין יפה מוכר ⁠– אית ליה; לרבנן ⁠– לית ליה.

The Talmud discusses the reverse case: If one sold the trees and left the ownership of the land for himself, the halakha depends on the outcome of the dispute of R' Akiva and the Rabbis. According to R' Akiva, who says: One who sells, sells generously, the buyer has ownership of the land surrounding the trees, as the presumption is that the seller included it in the sale. According to the Rabbis, who say: One who sells, sells sparingly, the buyer does not have ownership of the land surrounding the trees, as the presumption is that the seller did not include it in the sale.

לרבי עקיבא אית ליה ⁠– ואפילו לרב זביד דאמר: אין לו ⁠– הני מילי גבי שני לקוחות, דאמר ליה: כי היכי דלדידי לית לי באילנות, לדידך נמי לית לך בקרקע; אבל הכא ⁠– מוכר בעין יפה מוכר.

The Talmud stated previously that according to the opinion of R' Akiva, the buyer has ownership of the land surrounding the trees. The Talmud clarifies this opinion: And even according to Rav Zevid, who said (37a) that in a case where one took possession of the land and another took possession of the trees, the one who took possession of the trees has no share in the land, that matter applies only concerning the case of two buyers. As in that case, the one who acquired the land can say to the other: Just as it is so that I have no share in the trees, you also have no share in the land; but here, where one sold the trees and left the land for himself, one who sells, sells generously. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the sale included the land surrounding the trees.