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 kumki land, for in South Kanara there is a kind of floating right in kumki, and every wargdar is entitled to the adjoining unassigned land up to 100 yards on either side as kumki, and it is not merely a theoretical right but has very valuable incidents like using the land for collecting manure leaves and raising trees, and having a recognised preference in the matter of darkhast or assignment, this right being rendered stronger by improvements, like planting of trees. But all said and done, some distinction must be made between improvements on lands not belonging strictly to the mortgagors and kumki lands. So, while Mr. Adiga’s initial argument that no compensation should be given on trees on such kumki and other non-warg lands is not accepted by me, and, indeed, was not eventually pressed seriously by him, I have no hesitation in holding that only a lesser compensation which I fix at half (for in such cases the rule “Equality is Equity” applies) the compensation for such improvements on warg lands should be granted for such improvements on kumki and non-warg lands. Mr. Narayana Pai also does not seriously dispute the equity of applying this rule of one-half. So, I reduce the compensation awarded under this head by the lower appellate Court from Rs.1,657-8-0 to Rs.828-12-0.

I have also no doubt that the original trees existing on the land given on usufructuary mortgage, though now replaced owing to the lapse of time by substituting trees planted in their place by the mortgagee, should not be covered by the compensation clause. It is a well-understood, though implied, term of every usufructuary mortgage, or even long lease, that a garden land should not be converted into a desert, by cutting all the trees, or a wet land denuded of all its fertility by continuous cultivation without manuring. No reasonable othi mortgagor will contemplate the garden land being handed back to him after the period of 60 years, when the usufructuary mortgage is over, with no trees whatever on the ground that all the trees existing on the land mortgaged had died or had fallen down. If the mortgagee is to be not responsible for delivering back the land in the state in which he received it, there must be some specific clause in the mortgage deed to that effect. In my opinion, a specific clause is not required for delivering back the land in its original state by planting substitute trees in the place of the existing trees, and it is required only to support an alleged right for not planting substitute trees and delivering back the land with no trees. Whatever a reasonable person considers to be equitable will also be generally what the law considers to be equitable, though there may be exceptions. This land was termed a garden and had obviously arecanut trees on it even when it wa