(1) THIS is an appeal by certificate granted under Article 133(l)(a) by reason ofthe fact thatthe suit culminating inthe prsent appeal was valued at more than Rs. 20,000.00 (valued at Rs. 20,830.00 the appellants are th original plaintiffs who had instituted a suit for recovery of damages. According tothe plaintiffs, a parcel of forest land had been granted to them bythe then Ruier ofthe State of Lunawada before its merger in th then State of Bombay. They were deprived ofthe said forest land mOre specifically described inthe plaint without authoriiy of law from 1954 to 1963 bythe State of Gujarat. lt isthe grievance ofthe appellant thatthe trees which were standing onthe land in question atthe point of time when they were dispossessed had been removed during this inter- regnum.the daim for damages was made onthe basis ofthe valuation of th trees which were said to hve been removed duringthe aforesaid time bracket.the trial court decreedthe suit.the High court came to th conclusion thatthe plaintiffs had failed to establish that ihere were any trees standing onthe land in question atthe point of time whenthe plaintiffs were dispossessed.the High court aiso concluded that there was noevidence to show how many trees, if any, were standing atthe time when possession ofthe land was handed back tothe plaintiffs. Underthe circumstances,the High court was ofthe opinion thatthe appellants had failed to dischargethe onus resting on their shoulders to establish that a particular number of trees had been removed and that they were entitled to daim damages in that behaif. Reliance had been placed on an application made bythe appellants whereinthe existence of a number of trees had been mentioned. Butthe contents of this applica- tion were not proved by adducing anyevidence. No panchnama was drawn up at any point of time, that is to say, either atthe point of time whenthe appellants were deprived ofthe possession or atthe point of time when possession was restored to them.the High Curt, in thse premises, understandably refused to rely on this material. Reliance was aiso placed on oral testimony of Kalubhai who deposed that 33,000.00 trees were standing onthe said land atthe time when possession was taken fromthe plaintiffs. His vidence has been rightiy discarded bythe High Court as his vidence does not inspire confidence.the High court accordingly reversedthe decree passed bythe trial court and dismissed th suit. Reliance was aiso placed on oral testimony of Kalubhai who deposed that 33,000.00 trees were standing onthe said land atthe time when possession was taken fromthe plaintiffs. His vidence has been rightiy discarded bythe High Court as his vidence does not inspire confidence.the High court accordingly reversedthe decree passed bythe trial court and dismissed th suit. We hve been taken throughthe relevant record as aisothe material vidence andthe judgment ofthe trial court as well asthe judg- ment ofthe High court. Having closely consideredthe same we are satisfied thatthe High court has not committed any error in taking this view.the plaintiffs hve failed to dischargethe burden resting on them to establish their daim. Underthe circumstances,the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs throughout.