1. There is no merit in this appeal. On the evidence on record the finding of the lower court that the plot in question is not an agricultural or horticultural land has to be accepted as correct. The plot has been and is for all practical purposes, a place for trade in timber. The appellant was therefore rightly held to be not an agriculturist who could claim the benefit of Act XXXI of 1958 The appeal is therefore dismissed with

costs.

Dismissed.