T. S. DOABIA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants on the basis of entries existing in the revenue record of Samvat 2007 submit that they were entitled to the benefit of exemptions as contemplated by Section 5 (1) (f) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008 (Act 13 of 1951 ). ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit claiming that they should be recognised as proprietors vis-a-vis 17 biswas of land situated in Survey No. 153. This claim was negatived by both the Courts below. ( 3 ) IN this appeal, the only argument raised is based on the basis of Section 5 (1) (f) of the aforementioned Act. This provision reads as under :-"5. Private wells, trees, buildings, house-sites and enclosures-xx xx xx xx (f) All groves wherever situate and recorded in village papers in the name of the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other person and the land under such grove shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person by the Government on such terms and conditions as it may determine. "a reading of the aforementioned provisions does indicate that if trees are standing on a particular piece of land then that much portion shall not vest in the State and it would continue to remain with the Zamindar in question or the person in possession. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff's father was a Zamindar. The revenue record indicates that there are mango and babul trees standing. The counsel submits that even if a non-fruit bearing tree is standing on the land then also provisions of Section 5 (1) (f) of the Act would be attracted. For this, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court of India reported as Chandrojirao Angre v. State of M. P. , 1968 RN 270. The aforementioned decision was dealing with the provisions of the Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1950 but the reasoning given in the aforementioned decision can be followed with advantage in this case. For this, reliance has been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court of India reported as Chandrojirao Angre v. State of M. P. , 1968 RN 270. The aforementioned decision was dealing with the provisions of the Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1950 but the reasoning given in the aforementioned decision can be followed with advantage in this case. The Supreme Court of India dealt with the term "grove" and in para 6 observed that the word "grove" conveys compactness or at any rate substantial compactness to be recognised as a unit by itself which must consist of a group of trees in sufficient number to preclude the land on which they stand from being primarily used for a purpose, such as cultivation, other than as a grove-land. ( 4 ) IN this case, on a small piece of land measuring 17 biswas three mango trees and some babul trees are standing. Therefore, this land would answer the description of the term "grove" and would attract the aforementioned provisions of Section 5 (f) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that the appellants are no longer in possession and they were dispossessed. It is also argued that a veterinary hospital has been set up. It be seen that so far as present land is concerned, if it falls within the definition of the term "grove" then this land would not vest in the State. The finding of the Courts below vis-a-vis possession is that the possession is with the appellants. On the basis of the interpretation made on S. 5 (1) (f) of the Act, it is concluded that the appellants' predecessors' rights in 17 biswas of land on which mango and babul trees were standing remain intact and never vested in the State. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The suit of the appellants is decreed. A decree be drawn up accordingly. Appeal allowed. .