JUDGMENT

Tyreell, J. - This was a very simple suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants, who are admittedly zamindars of the land in suit, against the defendants, who are occupancy-tenants of the land, seeking to restrain the defendants from converting arable land into a grove or wood. The Courts below have concurred in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. They have applied Article 32, Schedule ii of Act XV of 1877, and in my opinion the article has been rightly applied. They have held broadly that some of the trees were planted some seven years ago, and some were planted within a year from the date of the suit. These findings alone are not sufficient for the disposal of the case. The lower Courts have not determined the terminus a quo of the period from which the limitation begins to run. Under that clause the limitation begins to run from the date "when the perversion first becomes known to the person injured thereby." It is therefore necessary to have this point determined. And I would therefore remit the following issue for determination by the Court below:

When did the plaintiff first become aware of the perversion of the land?

The finding when made will be returned to