1. This and the connected appeals are similar to Second Appeal No. 705 of 1906, decided by us on the 2nd of January 1908. The defendant brought a suit in the Revenue Court against the plaintiffs for their ejectment from lands held by them for a number of years. The plaintiffs contended in the Revenue Court that they were proprietors of the lands in question. They were thereupon referred to the Civil Court under Section 199 of the Tenancy Act, to have their alleged proprietary title established. They accordingly brought the suits out of which these appeals have arisen. The only question which the Civil Court had to determine was whether the plaintiffs have a proprietary right in the lands in question. Any other questions as to the liability of the lands to assessment to rent or the ejectment of the plaintiffs from the lands held by them were questions to be determined by the Revenue Court and not by the Civil Court. It was urged on their behalf that under Section 158 of the Tenancy Act they had acquired proprietary right to the lands, having held them for more than 50 years and for, more than two generations. All that the lower appellate Court in each case has found is that the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title have been in possession without payment of rent for more than fifty years, and for two generations. It has not been found that there was a rent-free grant. The mere fact of the lands being held for more than fifty years does not necessarily raise the inference that such a grant was made. In each case the wajib-ul-arz explains the position. The defendant's predecessor-in-title, namely, the Raja of Mainpuri, allowed the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs to plant groves on certain lands. The condition was that so long as the groves continued no rent to be paid but if the land was brought under cultivation it was to be assessed to rent; but the persons holding it were to continue to occupy it. These conditions of the wajib-ul-arz were considered by us in Second Appeal No. 705 of 1906, to which we have referred above. According to the interpretation we placed upon the terms of the wajib-ul-arz, the plaintiffs cannot be regarded as proprietors of the land in suit but are merely as tenants thereof. It seems to us doubtful whether the provisions of Chapter X of the Tenancy Act apply to groves having regard to the definition of the word land' as given in Section 4 (Ch. 2) of the Act. But even if they do apply to such lands, we are unable to hold, for the reasons we have already stated, that Section 158 is applicable to a case like this, and that under that section the plaintiffs have acquired proprietary rights. We allow the appeal and setting aside the decrees of the Courts below dismiss the plaintiffs' suit with costs in all Courts.