The ownership of boundary trees is determined by the location of the tree's trunk. If the trunk stands wholly on one owner's land, the tree belongs exclusively to that owner. If the trunk stands partly on the land of multiple owners, the tree belongs to them in common.

1. A dispute over two mango trees constitutes the grand subject-matter of this appeal. The two mango trees are standing close to the boundry of the plaintiff and defendants' property. Plaintiff claimed that the two trees, exclusively belonged to him. Claiming title to these two trees, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title over the trees and also for an injunction to restrain the defendants from plucking mangoes from the trees. Defendants contended that the trees are owned and possessed by them, since the trees stand in their property.

2. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence in the case, held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title and possession over the two trees and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff filed an appeal. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Now the plaintiff appeals.

3. From the brief sketch of facts set out above, it is plain that the dispute that was raised in the suit is essentially a dispute which has to be resolved on ascertaining definitely the truth of certain controversial facts. One of the crucial facts that has to be determined for a proper resolution of the controversy between the parties is to find out the exact sites of the trees in question. Naturally, the said investigation can be made more or less perfect and accurate by the issuance of a commission. The trial court issued a commission and the commissioner has filed a report giving the details regarding the sites of the trees. The commissioner's report and plan would show that the trees in question are standing in the property on the southern side of a boundary wall separating the properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Admittedly, the southern property belongs to the defendants. The trial court, chiefly relying on the commissioner's report and plan, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for in the suit. The appellate court also rested on the commissioner's report and plan, for holding that the plaintiff has not established a case meriting a decree for declaration and injunction.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued his case at great length. He submitted before me that the courts ought to have given more credence and importance to the survey measurements and if the courts had undertaken a careful scrutiny of the plan submitted by the commissioner with reference to the survey plan, it would have been possible for the courts to have come to a different conclusion and could have held that the sites of the trees was in the property of the plaintiff. The fact whether there was in existence a boundary wall separating the properties of the plaintiff and defendants as found by the commissioner was also seriously disputed by the counsel appearing for the appellant. He submitted that the wall mentioned by the commissioner is not really a boundary wall. He has read over to me the entire evidence in the case. But, I was not able to find out anything to support his case to say that the wall mentioned by the commissioner is not a separating boundary wall. Of course, the trees are standing close to and grazing the boundary wall.

5. What is the principle or law to determine the arboreal ownership when trees stand on the boundary line? The question is not free from difficulty. Hunt's 'Boundaries and Fences' is an authoritative book on the subject. The author states the law thus:

"With respect to the ownership of trees standing on or near the boundaries of property, the rule generally adopted in the United States of America, is that trees whose trunks stand wholly upon the land of one owner belong exclusively to him, although their roots grow into the land of the adjoining owner, and that trees whose trunks stand partly on the land of two or more coterminous owners belong to them in common; and the rule is at once reasonable and simple."

6. In Waterman v. Soper, Holt C. J. said:

"If A plants a tree upon the extreme limit of his