JUDGMENT
Straight, J.
1. It is admitted by the learned pleader for the defendants-appellants that the learned Judge has found in specific terms that the land upon which the trees have been planted by the defendants, of which act or acts the plaintiffs complain, is the waste-land of the zamindars, and accordingly the defendants had no rights in that land, which would justify them in so planting the trees. Mr. Bam Prasad has contended for the appellants that art. 32 of the Limitation Law applies to the present case, and in support of that view he has quoted the ruling of my brothers TYRRELL and MAHMOOD in Gangadhar v. Zahurriya I. L. R., 8 All., 446.
2. It would be out of place for me to criticise that ruling if I disagreed with it, which I do not. But the facts of that ease are totally distinct from the facts disclosed here. There, there was an undoubted right in the defendants, who were occupancy-tenants of the plaintiff’s land, to use that land for certain specific purposes, and what the plaintiff complained of was that instead of using it as arable land, for which it had been let to them, they had converted it into a bagh or grove; consequently Article 32 was held to be applicable. Here the case is a totally different one. Upon the admission of the learned pleader for the appellants, the defendants had no right in this waste-land of the zamindars-plaintiffs under colour of which they could plant trees in the zamindars’ waste; and except that they could have asserted any title by adverse possession for more than 12 years to the land, they could have acquired no right to plant trees therein. They have proved no such adverse proprietary title in the land, and all that they have sought to do, is to show that what they did, of which the plaintiffs complain, was done either with their direct leave or license or with acquiescence upon their part. Dealing with the point of limitation, I think that the learned Judge was right in applying Article 120 of the Limitation Law. The only question further that I have to determine is, when did the right to bring the suit accrue to the plaintiffs? Mr. Ram Prasad has not satisfied me that the plaintiffs’ right to sue accrued more than six years prior to the date of the institution of the suit, and this view seems to have been held by the learned Judge in the Court below. That being so, I dismiss the appeal with costs.
