JUDGMENT Malik, CJ. - This is a plaintiff's appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of three plots Nos. 1141, 1142 and 1143, the total area of which was one bigha three biswas. Plaintiff's case was that the defendants had taken wrongful possession of the plots in October, 1944, the land being banjar land of 'the plaintiff, the defendants had appropriated the grass that was growing on it and had planted some trees. In the oral pleadings dated 15th January, 1946, it was admitted that the plots were originally grovel and. 3. The lower appellate court found that in the first Settlement the plot was mentioned as grove and one of the defendants' ancestors was shown in possession of it as a grove-holder. In the second Settlement a portion of the plot was shown as Ghair mazrua qadim and one bigha as cultured while it was mentioned that there were fourteen trees on it in the possession of person who were ancestors of the defendants, In the third Settlement the plot was divided into three plots and it was mentioned that they were parti jaded containing ten trees. 4. Plaintiff's case was that though originally the plots were groves they ceased to be groves some time before the second Settlement and became cultural plots and after some time cultivation also ceased and the plots became banjar about forty-five years back. The plaintiff has stated that there were only three trees on the plots but the commissioner found as many as twenty two trees. Six mango saplings and one neem tree might have been planted after the filing of the suit, the other fifteen existed from before. 5. The lower appellate court considered the entries in the Settlements the report of the commissioner, the number of the trees that existed on the plots and came to the conclusion that the defendants were grove holders and the land was a grove land. 6. Learned counsel has laid great stress on Section 57 of the Land Revenue Act and has urged that there was a presumption of correctness about the entries made in the second and the. third Settlements and the lower court should not have brushed aside those entries and held in defendants favour. 6. Learned counsel has laid great stress on Section 57 of the Land Revenue Act and has urged that there was a presumption of correctness about the entries made in the second and the. third Settlements and the lower court should not have brushed aside those entries and held in defendants favour. From the judgment under appeal it is clear that that entire evidence on the record was considered by the learned judge and I do not see (sic) it can be said that the finding recorded by him is not a finding of fact. 7. The only other point that has been raised is that the first issue should have been referred to the revenue court for a decision u/s 238 of the U.P. Tenancy Act the issue being. Are the defendants the grove holders of the land in suit? Section 288(1) of the U.P. Tenancy Act is as follows :- If in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in a Civil Court, any question regarding tenant right arises and such question has not previously been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Civil Court shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and submit record to the appropriate revenue court for the decision of that issue only. 8. It is clear from the above quotation that it is only a question relating to tenant right that has to be referred to the revenue court. A tenant is defined in sub-clause (23) of Section 3 as meaning a person by whom rent is or but for a contract express or implied payable, but does not include a mortgagee of proprietary or under proprietary rights, a grove-holder, a rent free grantee etc The definition makes it clear that a grove holder is not a tenant. Learned counsel has, however, relied on Section 206, clause (f) of the U.P. Tenancy Act which is as follows :- Rights and liabilities" of grove-holder notwithstanding anything in this Act, or any custom or contract to the contrary- (f) the provisions of Section 49, 59 to 64 and of Chapter VII and of clauses (a), (b) (d) and (e) of Section 236 and of Sections 237 to 240 shall apply to grove-holders as they apply to tenants, except that the provisions of Section 148 shall apply only to the extent to which they refer to the recovery of rent by. suit; 9. suit; 9. The provisions made applicable to grove-holders are the provisions which relate to tenants. The argument is that as the provisions which were for tenants have been made applicable to grove-holder it must be deemed that grove-holders were intended to be considered as tenants. The language of this section as well as the rest of the Act is against this contention. All that this clause provides is that certain provisions of the Act applicable to tenants shall also apply to grove-holders. That does "not mean that for all purposes the grove-holders are to be treated as tenants. Section 288 of the U.P. Tenancy Act is not mentioned as one of the provisions made applicable to grove-holders. I do not think there is any force in this contention. 10. The result, therefore, is that the appeal has no force and is dismissed with costs.