JUDGMENT Rafique, J.
1. The defendant-appellant was the owner of half the khewat No. 2. In execution of a decree against him his share was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs-respondents on the 20th of March 1908. In the sale certificate the description of the property sold is given which includes a beri grove. On the 8th of April 1914, the plaintiffs-respondents brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, for a declaration that they were the owners and proprietors of the beri grove situate on plot No. 380 and for an injunction against the defendant-appellant rest raining him from interfering with their possession. They said that the defendant-appellant a short time before the institution of the suit had without any right wrongfully cut down two trees of the grove in question. They asked for Rs. 30 as damages for the price of the trees cut down by the defendant-appellant. The latter resisted the suit by denying the title of the plaintiffs-respondents to the grove. He said that it was excepted from the sale and that it was his sir the learned Munsif decreed the claim. On appeal his decree was confirmed the defendant-appellant comes here in second appeal and contends that as he raised the question of ex-proprietary tenancy in respect of plot No. 380 on which the grove is situate, the Courts below were not competent to dispose of that question under Section 202 of Act II of 1901. On reference to the record it appears to me that no specific plea was taken by the defendant-appellant to the effect that after the sale of his zamindari share he became an ex proprietary tenant of the plot on which the grove is situate. He did say that the said plot was his sir, and in connection with that statement the first Court discussed the question whether he was an ex-proprietary tenant of that plot. It came to the conclusion on the evidence in the case that even if the defendant-appellant was an ex-proprietary tenant of that plot, he had lost his right by his having been out of possession for more than six month's. The same view was taken by the learned Judge on appeal. It cannot be said on the pleadings in the case that the question now raised was agitated in the Courts below. Lint apart from that I do not think that the provisions of Section 202 of Act IT of 1001 are applicable to the present case. The plot in suit, that is, No. 380 on which the grove is situate, is not an agricultural holding and the provisions of Section 202 of A tit II of 1901 apply only to agricultural holdings. The objection of the appellant to the decree passed against him, therefore, fails and the appeal is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.