Grimwood Mears, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.
1. This appeal must succeed. The fact is that there was a grove, some 18 years ago, on land formerly in the possession of the ancestors of the defendants as grove-holders. Those trees were cut down and the grove-holders abandoned the land, which thereupon reverted to the zamindars. For upwards of 12 years the land remained as waste; there were neither trees nor cultivation upon it. At a period which is certainly from 3 to 6 years prior to the commencement of the suit, the defendants planted certain trees on the groves. They are the descendants of the original grove-holders. We are of opinion that that fact gives them no preferential right or differentiates them in any way from any other person who might have come in and planted trees without the permission of the zamindar. They had no right to come upon the land after its abandonment by their predecessors in title. The learned Judge in this Court says that 'as the matter stands, the plot in question is now covered with trees' (as to that there is no doubt; they were, however, found to be of quite recent planting) 'and cannot be said to have quite lost the character of a grove.' We are obliged to differ from him because we believe the history of the land for the past 20 years to have been--and as found by the lower appellate court--first a grove, then land abandoned for upwards of 12 years and lying waste, then re-occupied by the descendants of the original grove-holders and transformed into a newly planted grove. In these circumstances the zamindars who have brought the action are entitled to the relief originally claimed by them, and we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this Court and restore that of the lower appellate court. The appellants will have their costs of both hearings in this Court.