1. The plaintiff zamindar sued for the ejectment of the defendant in the revenue Court on the ground that the land in suit had lost the character of a grove. Both subordinate Courts have held that this was not so, that some trees still stood on the land and that the defendant was entitled to plant new trees in place of those which he had cut down and should have been given an opportunity of doing so. The defendant had not cultivated the land, expressed his intention of planting new trees and alleged that he was prevented by the plaintiff from doing so. It is argued here that under the wajib-ul-arz the defendant has no right to plant new trees in place of old ones which he had cut. Such, however, is not the meaning of the clause in the wajid-ul-arz. It was read over to me. There all the existing groves, including the one in suit, were described by numbers, and then it was stated that in future no one else shall be entitled to plant a grove without the consent of the zamindar. Such a contract does not prevent the owner of a grove from planting new trees in the grove which had existed prior to this record-of-rights. The case of Ishar Din v. Mumtaz Husain Khan  39 I.C. 974 was quoted on behalf of the appellant. There the planting of trees in an existing grove was prohibited. Such is not the case here. I dismiss this appeal with costs.