JUDGMENT

1. This is a defendants' second appeal and arises out of a decree for Rs. 200 passed by the two lower Courts as damages on account of the defendants' wrongfully cutting 69 babul trees from certain plots in village Unchahar. It is not denied that the plaintiff-respondent is a mutwalli and representative of one Saiyid Yusuf Husain, the talukdar of Unchahar, who executed a perpetual lease (Ex. A-1) in respect of 25 bighas 4 biswas and 8 biswansis land situate in village Unchahar pargana Salon with an annual rent of Rs. 40 on 24th July 1924, in favour of the defendant, along with other land with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. The plaintiff's case was that the lease in favour of the defendant was for purposes of cultivation only, that the babul trees were of spontaneous growth and existed at the plots in suit at the time of the lease and that the defendant wrongfully cut the babul trees in derogation of the terms of the lease and appropriated the timber thereof without any right. He accordingly claimed Rs. 200 as compensation money by way of damages in respect of the babul trees cut by the defendant. The defence was that the trees had been planted by the defendant and that even if the trees were taken to be of spontaneous growth the defendant was both under the terms of the lease and under the law entitled to cut them. The trial Court held that the trees were of spontaneous growth and that the defendant had cut 69 trees. It held that the defendant had no right to cut the trees and granted a decree for damages.

2. The lower appellate Court remanded the case for a finding whether the trees cut by the defendant existed at the time the perpetual lease was given or not. To this the trial Court returned the finding that the trees in question had grown up sometime after the third settlement of 1924-25, namely after the execution of the lease. The lower appellate Court held in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court that the trees in question were not planted by the defendant but were those of spontaneous growth. It also agreed with the view of the trial Court that at the time of the lease there were no babul trees on the land in suit and that the babul trees cut away by the defendant were of spontaneous growth and had cropped up sometime after the lease had been made. Upon the question of law whether the defendant was entitled to cut away the babul trees the lower appellate Court held upon the authority of certain decisions of the Allahabad High Court, differing from the view taken by the Madras High Court, that the defendant was not entitled to out the trees. The lower appellate Court also relied on Section 108(o), T.P. Act, in support of its conclusion. In second appeal before us, it has been contended on behalf of the defendants-appellants that under the terms of the lease the defendant is entitled to cut and remove the trees of spontaneous growth. It is also contended that apart from the terms of the lease the defendant is legally entitled to cut the trees unless the plaintiff succeeds in showing some provision of the law under which he can restrain the defendant from cutting the trees. We have examined the terms of the lease (Ex. A-1) and are of opinion that there are no words in the lease which confer any right upon the lessee to cut trees of spontaneous growth. The lease is styled as a perpetual lease executed by a taluqdar in favour of the defendant, another taluqdar. The rights conferred by the lease' are that the lessee shall be in possession of the plots generation after generation on a rental of Rs. 40. Clause (3) shows that the land covered by the lease is in the possession of the tenants and confers upon the lessee a right to realise rent from these tenants or to eject them if he so pleases. Power is given to the lessee to let the land to other tenants or to keep it under his own cultivation or to make such suitable arrangement regarding the land which the lessee may think proper. The last