JUDGMENT
Coutts, J.
1. This was a suit for recovery of possession of certain lac trees. The plaintiff is the owner of five annas five-krants share of Mauza Boos, partly by purchase from the defendant and partly by purchase from other persons and by subsequent partition. The lac trees stand on this land and the main case of the defendant is that he acquired a title to them by adverse possession for more than twelve years. This contention of the defendant has been accepted by the trial Court, and the lower Appellate Court, and the suit has been dismissed.
2. The finding that the defendant has been in possession of these trees adversely to the plaintiff for more than twelve years is a finding of fact with which we cannot interfere in second appeal, but it is urged by Mr. Mullick for the appellant that Article 141 of the Limitation Act will not apply, because whatever right defendant may have acquired is not a right to immoveable property or an interest in immoveable property but that it is aright in the nature of an case ment, This was exactly the same argument as was advanced in the case of Bapu v. Dhondi 16 B. 353 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 713. In that case the learned Judges were of opinion that a claim for possession of trees is a claim to an interest in immoveable property. The same view was taken in the case of Jagrani Bibi v. Ganeshi 3 A. 435 : A.W.N. (1881) 9 : 5 Ind. Jur. 652 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 219, and it appears to me to be the correct view of the law. I would, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.
Macpherson, J.
3. I agree.