1. Two anjili trees and 31/4 cents of land constitute the magnificent subject matter of this appeal. Luckily, the land which is covered by the B schedule does not disturb me seriously because the plaintiff who sought relief in respect of that tiny bit has been refused relief concurrently by both the courts on the score that he has not made out a subsisting title thereto. To appreciate the question of ownership of the two trees, a few facts need mention. Admittedly, the plaintiff was the owner of S. No. 12809 and the defendant of S. No. 12787. The plan, Ext. D2, discloses that the two anjili trees are situate in the plaintiff's plot S. No. 12809. Even so, it is noticed by the commissioner that the trees are on the boundary line dividing the portion of survey plot 12809 which has been upheld in favour of the plaintiff and the triangular portion, on the western side, of that survey plot which has been denied to the plaintiff on account of absence of possession with him for a long time beyond the period of limitation. In short, the location of the two trees, as seen from the plan and as can be gleaned from the report of the commissioner, is on the boundary line between the