DAROPADI Vs. MANNU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for possession of a certain grove on the ground that the defendant who had originally been grove-holder, had allowed it to lose its character as grove with the consequence that the right of occupation reverted to the zamindar. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the suit, holding that it was necessary to prove abandonment, and that the facts proved did not amount to-abandonment. The lower appellate Court, has also considered the question whether, assuming that the zamindar was entitled to resume the plot on the ground that it had been allowed to lose its character as grove land, the plot had as a fact lost that character.

(2.) In this second appeal two pleas are substantially taken, (a) that proof of abandonment was not essential, and (b) that the lower appellate Court's finding that the land had not lost the character of a grove was based upon a misconception of the law.

(3.) I hold that both the contentions are correct. It is well-established that a person, granted a specific area for the purpose of planting and maintaining a grove loses his right of occupation when he allows the land to cease to retain the character of a grove. Abandonment, actual or implied, is not necessary. I would refer to the case of Hazari Lal V/s. Nimar A.I.R. 1923 All. 295, where, however, both abandonment by the grove-holder and proof of cessation of retention of the character of a grove, by the land were held to be proved. Again in Harsahai v. Danpal Singh [1916] 2 O.L.J. 589,, Mr. Justice Kanhaiya Lal appears to me to have correctly stated the law, namely that a plot granted for the purpose of a grove retains the character of grove so long as a portion of it retains that character, and in like manner fails to retain that character when no portion of it can be regarded as retaining that character. I would also refer to the Select Decision of the Board of Revenue, No. 14 of 1912, in which Mr. D.C. Baillie (subsequently Sir Duncan Baillie) held that the right of a tenant to retain possession of grove land lasts only so long a he maintains it as a grove. Lastly I would refer to the provisions of the new Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, Section 3, definition of grove land, and Section 196 and 197. That Act was not in force when this suit was brought, but that Act was intended to define the law as to grove-holders pre-existing the Act.