JUDGMENT

Hamilton, J - This is an appeal by defendants against a decision of the learned Civil Judge of Partabgarh who allowed an appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The defendants held a grove which was numbered 219 A, 219 B and 219 C at the previous settlement. The land is now numbered 147/1, 147/2 and 147/3, but at the first settlement it was numbered 47 with goshas A, B and C, all being groves. One part of it ceased to have any trees and according to the plaint the defendants took possession of it and planted trees although it had ceased to be a grove and had, therefore, reverted to the defendants who were zamindars. The lower Appellate Court held that Nos. 147/1, 147/2 and 147/3 must no longer be regarded as one plot because it is subdivided into three parts and the defendants were no longer entitled to the part without trees. The lower Appellate Court has drawn a distinction between the present case and Jagdish Bahadur Singh v. Bagho Ram ('26) 13 AIR 1926 Oudh 458, but a case more in point is Lachhmi Narain v. Kampta Prasad ('32) 19 AIR 1932 Oudh 281, the only difference between that case and the present one being that in that case the plot of land was sub-divided into two parts and in the present case it is sub-divided into three.

2. The learned Counsel for the respondents would make a further distinction in the present case in that the part in suit which no longer has any trees has been described in revenue papers as " parti qadim " while there is nothing to show how the land in Lachhmi Narain v. Kampta Prasad ('32) 19 AIR 1932 Oudh 281, was entered in the patwari's papers. I do not think that it is possible to hold that the entry "parti qadim" in a case like the present one is evidence of the possession of the zamindars and of the loss of possession of the original grove-holders. Once there were no trees on it, it was natural for the patwari to cease to record it as a grove, and if it was not cultivated the only entry that the patwari could make about it was to call it "parti". At first it might be qualified by the adjective "jadid" and in time would become entered as "parti qadim". I see no reason to differ from the view expressed in Lachhmi Narain v. Kampta Prasad ('32) 19 AIR 1932 Oudh 281 so that in the present case one must consider the whole plot No. 147. If the trees become so few, be it on one part or on two parts or on three parts that the whole number ceases to have the character of a grove, the zamindars will be entitled to possession over the whole, but if the trees are sufficiently numerous for the whole number to be a grove, even if there are no trees on any one part of it, the defendants are entitled to retain pos-session. The plaintiffs had to sue for the whole number and they then had to prove that its present' condition was such that it was no longer a grove but they only sued about one part and this they cannot do. I, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and restore the decision of the trial Court dismissing the suit.