1.We are of opinion that the decision of the Court below is correct. The plaintiffs brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal, for recovery of the value of the branches of certain trees which the plaintiffs had out down but which the defendants had removed and misappropriated. They also asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the trees. The trees appertained to a grove No. 872 which has been found to have been the muafi, of the defendants. They as such muafidars and as grove-holders mortgaged it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a decree for sale on the basis of the mortgage and in execution of the decree purchased the grove. After this auction purchase he became the sole owner of the grove. The defendants contend that the land was their sir and that they had acquired the rights of ex-proprietary tenants in respect of it and that consequently they were entitled to appropriate the timber of the trees existing on the land. As it is admitted and as it has been found that the land was the muafi of the defendants, they could not have any sir rights in respect of this land. It was not land which was held by them for agricultural purposes but was admittedly a grove. As a grove it could not have been their sir land, which necessarily implies land cultivated by the proprietor, that is, the land-holder. It is true that at the time of settlement in 1305 the land was recorded as sir, but it is manifest from the facts which have been found by the Court below that that entry was erroneous and that in reality the land was only the grove of the defendants, and not their sir land. Under these circumstances the defendants cannot be held to have acquired a right to the trees as the holders of an ex-proprietary holding, The plaintiff has acquired all the rights which the defendants bad as grove holders. We dismiss the appeal with costs.