1. The only point argued is that the appellants have acquired a right by prescription by the fact that the branches in dispute have been in existence for more than 12 years. The appellants rely on the case of Ratnavelu Mudaliar v. Kolendavelu Pillai 29 M. 511 : 16 M.L.J. 281, but that is not on all fours with this case. In it the right was in respect of a cornice. Here it is claimed in respect of the branches of a tree. Such a claim has been held to be inadmissible in Hari Krishna Joshiv. Sankar Vithal 16 B. 420, and we think rightly so. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.