JUDGMENT R. Singh, J. - This is a Plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 10/ - as damages for wrongful appropriation of the fruit crop of trees standing on three plots Nos. 950, 951 and 955. 2. The Plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the trees and it was alleged by him that the Defendant had wrongfully taken away the fruit crop of these trees. He, therefore, sued for the recovery of Rs. 10/ - as damages. 3. The Defendant's case was that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the trees and that the crop had not been taken away by her. 4. The parties had agreed before the trial court that there should be no dispute about the quantum of damages and that the price of the fruit crop may be fixed at Rs. 7/ -. The only point left for decision before the trial Court was whether the Plaintiff was the owner of the trees. 5. The trial court found in favour of the Plaintiff and decreed the claim for Rs. 7/ -. The Defendant then went up in appeal. In the lower appellate Court, the Defendant stated that she did not press her appeal in respect of damages for plots Nos. 950 and 951 and she restricted her appeal to damages in respect of trees on plot No. 955. Two documents were produced in the trial Court in support of the Plaintiff's title and they were Exs. 1 and 4. Ex. 1 was a list of groves prepared at the time of the first settlement and Ex. 4 was a copy of the khasra prepared at that very settlement. In Ex. 1 it was mentioned in the remarks column that the trees belonged to Balgobind and Sheo Charan and this statement about the possession of trees was accepted by the Zamindars. The lower appellate Court summoned the original records both from the collectorate as also from the tahsil. This entry in the remarks column, however, did not appear in the record received from the court of the Collector but was to be found in the original record kept in the tahsil. The learned Judge, therefore, refused to rely on these documents in view of the discrepancies in the two records. This entry in the remarks column, however, did not appear in the record received from the court of the Collector but was to be found in the original record kept in the tahsil. The learned Judge, therefore, refused to rely on these documents in view of the discrepancies in the two records. He also remarked that there was no evidence to prove that the trees which stood at present were in existence at the time when the entries were made in the first settlement records. He decreed the appeal in respect of plot No. 955 and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim to the extent of Rs. 3/8/- but maintained it in respect of the remaining amount of damages of Rs. 3/8/-. The Plaintiff has now come up in second appeal. 6. In a second appeal, the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court are conclusive and cannot be challenged. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has however, pointed out that the finding of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court was based on a misreading of the evidence and on wrong inferences drawn from the documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff. The two grounds on which the lower appellate Court has held that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the trees standing on plot No. 955 are that there was no evidence to prove that the trees which stood on the plot at present existed at the time when the first settlement was made and secondly that there was a discrepancy in the entries in the original records of the collectorate and the tahsil. As regards the age of the trees the learned judge seems to have overlooked the statement of Defendant herself who stated that the trees were one hundred years old. If the trees were one hundred years old, they must have stood in 1862 and 1869 when the two papers, Exs. 1 and 4 were prepared. As regards the entries in these two papers, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on circulars issued in connection with papers to be prepared in the first settlement. These settlement circulars are to be found in a book published by Banerji and printed in 1904. This book contains all the settlement circulars for the years 1860 to 1867. As regards the entries in these two papers, the learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on circulars issued in connection with papers to be prepared in the first settlement. These settlement circulars are to be found in a book published by Banerji and printed in 1904. This book contains all the settlement circulars for the years 1860 to 1867. Circular No. 63 of 1863 given on page 80 of this book was issued on the 25th November, 1863. It contained instructions for the guidance of settlement officers and it was clearly explained in this circular how entries in regard to groves were to be made in the settlement papers. This circular shows that the proprietary rights in the trees were to be taken as separate from proprietary rights in the land on which the trees stood and settlement officers were enjoined by this circular to make entries with regard to both points in the settlement papers. It would, therefore, appear that it was the duty of the settlement officer to record as to who was in possession of the trees, and also the names of the proprietors of the land. In the original records which are in the tahsil, the entries about the possession and ownership of trees are recorded while these entries are not to be found in the records maintained in the collectorate, with regard to the plots in dispute in this case. The records kept in the tahsil will, therefore, be held to have been prepared in accordance with the instructions issued to the settlement officers by the Government and will be deemed to be more in accord with the principles laid down by the Government. The mere omission of the entry in the remarks column in the papers kept in the collectorate does not show that the entry found in the original record of the tahsil was incorrect. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has tried to show that the entries in the last column in Ex. 1 pertain only to plot No. 596 and not to plot No. 600. The khasra Ex. 1 shows that there were five mango trees which stood on plot No. 596 and fifteen mango trees which stood in plot No. 600 in the year when the settlement was made. In the remarks column of Ex. 1 pertain only to plot No. 596 and not to plot No. 600. The khasra Ex. 1 shows that there were five mango trees which stood on plot No. 596 and fifteen mango trees which stood in plot No. 600 in the year when the settlement was made. In the remarks column of Ex. 1 there is a bracket against the entry of five mango trees and fifteen mango trees and it is against this bracket that the entry about possession is to be found, it is, therefore, clear that this entry relates to both the plots Nos. 596 and 600. It is not disputed that plot No. 600 is the same as 955 in the present settlement. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, did not draw a correct inference from the documents, Exs. 1 to 4 produced by the Plaintiff. There was also the admission of the Defendant that the trees which were in dispute were over one hundred years old. They were, therefore, the same trees as were mentioned in the papers prepared at the first settlement. The grievance of the Appellant that the lower appellate Court misread the evidence and drew a wrong conclusion from the documentary evidence is, therefore, well founded and it was open to the Appellant to challenge the findings of the lower appellate Court which were based on a misreading of the evidence and wrong conclusions drawn from the documentary evidence produced by him. It would thus appear that the Plaintiff was e(sic)eit-led to succeed in his claim for damages regarding the fruit crop of the trees standing on plot No. 955 also. 8. The appeal, is therefore, allowed and the Plaintiff's claim is decreed for the recovery of Rs. 7/ - with costs in all the Courts.