1. This and the connected appeal arise under the following circumstances. The plaintiff brought a suit against the defendants, alleging that he was in' separate possession of certain land situate in a Mahal in which both he and the defendants were co-sharers, that there was a crop growing on this land which belonged to him and that he had been dispossessed by the defendants. He claimed possession of the land with the crops growing, His suit was under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court, finding that the plaintiff was in possession, granted him a decree under that section granting him possession of both the crops and land. Before the decree could be executed, the defendants took possession of the crops and out and removed them. Thereupon the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this and the connected appeal arise. In this * he claimed that he was entitled to damages for the crops. It seems to us to make no difference whether he called it damages or asked for the price of the crops which had been taken and removed, as he alleged. The Court of first instance granted the plaintiff a decree, giving him Rs. 396 instead of Rs. 700 odd which he claimed. The first Court was of opinion that it could not go behind the possessory decree given in the previous litigation, and this applied both to the crops and the land. Both parties appealed; the plaintiff contended that he should have got the amount claimed in respect of the crops, and the defendant that he should not get a decree at all and raising, inter alia, the question of title to the land. The lower Appellate Court remanded the case to the Court of first instance, being of opinion that the defendant was entitled to have the question of title tried. We think that this view was entirely wrong. We are clearly of opinion that the. defendants could not by cutting and removing the crops annul the effect of the possessory decree. If the defendants are entitled to the land, they should assert that right by proper legal proceedings. It appears that some of the defendants actually did so but did not press their claim. The plaintiff sooner than prolong the litigation is ready to waive his right to have his appeal against the amount decreed him disposed of by the Court below. We have read from the judgment of the Court of first instance the manner in which it arrived at the conclusion as to the value of the crops and we are inclined to think that the first Court took a very moderate view of the amount to which the plaintiff was entitled. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.