Short Note : This was plaintiff's second appeal. The dispute relates to mango crop removed by the defendants in the year 1966 and 1967. There are four mango trees of which the crops were removed in Khasra No. 234 of Mauza Dhanora, District Khandwa. The land is held by the defendants in Bhumiswami rights. The plaintiff, however, claimed title to the trees. The learned Additional District Judge found against the plaintiff. 2. Khasra No. 234 was originally held in occupancy rights by one Sukhlal. He surrendered the land to the plaintiff who was the Lambardar by a deed dated 20-10-1942. The plaintiff in turn gave the land to Mansaram in occupancy rights on 17-4-1946. He did not transfer the trees. The defendants claim through Mansaram. Held : The question is whether the trees would be saved to the proprietor after the abolition of proprietary rights. Under section 4(a) of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, trees except those on home farm land vest in the State. The trees on home farm land are saved to the proprietor under section 5(c) of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. A proprietor could also claim title to all groves wherever situate and recorded in the village papers in his name. 3. Firstly the trees in question did not constitute a "grove" and therefore, the plaintiff could not claim them under section 5(h) of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. Secondly, though opportunity was given to the plaintiff to file village papers to show if these trees were ever recorded in his name as a "grove", the plaintiff could not file any such village paper. 4. The result is that the trees could not be held to be belonging to the plaintiff. After the Abolition of the Proprietary Rights Act came into force, the proprietor was bound to show how the trees were saved to him. Since the plaintiff's claim to the trees has not been established, he cannot claim damages for the crops removed by the defendants. Appeal dismissed.