Only three points arise for determination in this second appeal which relates solely to the enhancement of the compensation awarded for improvements, in the shape of planting of trees on mortgaged land, by the lower appellate Court over the trial Court’s decree to the tune of some Rs.4,000. Mr. Adiga, for the appellants (plaintiffs), confined his arguments to three points, namely, that the lower appellate Court went wrong in giving the full value of the trees as compensation in respect of trees on kumki and other non-warg lands, in giving compensation for the original (or their substitutes) 100 arecanut trees standing on the mortgaged land at the time the land was originally mortgaged, and in not extending the definition of trees of spontaneous growth (and denying compensation) to wild jack, honne, beete and other timber trees which were not deliberately planted by the mortgagees. Mr. Adiga and Mr. Narayana Pai have argued the matter very reasonably before me. I shall deal with each point seriatim.

I have no doubt whatever that full compensation should not be given, though some compensation should be given, for improvements in the shape of trees on non-warg lands like kumk