1. The plaintiff zamindar came to Court on the revenue side desiring assessment of rent on a grove which had lost its character. The grove consisted of seven plots, 627 to 633, both inclusive. An excellent map exists on the record. Both the subordinate Courts held that all the plots should be taken together as one plot and on this consideration when 88 trees are still standing thereon the plot cannot be considered to have lost the character of a grove. It was overlooked by both the subordinate Courts that rent may be assessed even on a portion of a grove when that portion loses the character of a grove. This is but reasonable. If several plots of land are given for the planting of a grove without rent the grove-holder may dishonestly keep a larger number of trees only in one corner and cultivate the rest of the land without payment of rent arguing that the large number of trees on a portion of the grove were sufficient to give the land the character of a grove. This principle of assessment of rent on the cultivated portion of the grove has long been recognized by the Board of Revenue see Kishori Saran v. Rameswar 4 Unpublished Decisions 171. The learned Counsel for the respondents quoted the case of Mahbub Ali Khan v. Chiddan : AIR1926All519 to support the plea that no rent can be assessed on portions of a grove which has been brought under cultivation. That was, however, a case of ejectment. There were two plots, both of them had trees which gave them the character of a grove. The present case is totally different. It is one for the assessment of rent and for the zamindar to have a share of the benefit which the defendants derive contrary to the original arrangement. The plots which retain the character of a grove can be distinguished from the plots which do not retain such character, and simply because the plots are situated together in a compact whole it is not necessary that those plots which are devoid of trees should be considered to continue to have the character of a grove for the simple reason that other plots may be considered to be grove-land. In plot No. 628 there is only one tree, in No. 630 no tree at all, and in No. 632 there is a very large vacant land and only a few scattered trees. From the plan I am satisfied that plots Nos. 627, 629 and 633 are still groves, and No. 631 is covered by a building. I, therefore, hold that plots Nos. 628, 630 and 632 should be assessed to rent. As to No. 632, only the area .42 acre is quoted for assessment leaving out the area covered by a tank. The total area comes to .68 and the proportionate rent will be Rs. 14 per annum. As no rent had been assessed so far I shall not permit interest. In the result I set aside the decrees of both the subordinate Courts and declare plots Nos. 628, 630 and 632 to be cultivated land and liable to pay an annual rent of Rs. 14. The suit is further decreed for a cash sum of Rs. 42. The plaintiff shall recover his proportionate costs throughout.