Sankaran Nair, J.

1. A preliminary objection is taken as to the jurisdiction of this Court. It is first objected that the 3rd defendant does not live or carry on business in Madras and therefore the suit so far as he is concerned should be dismissed. Evidence has been taken on this point and I am of opinion that the suit is properly brought against the 3rd defendant. The evidence shows that he comes here to sell his casuarina trees and whenever he has any business to transact in Madras with reference to those trees he comes to Madras. Suits have been brought here against him and he has been arrested on warrants issued against him in Madras. I accordingly overrule the objection so far as the 3rd defendant is concerned.

2. The more difficult question that remains is whether the suit is one for land within the meaning of those words as used in Section 12 of the Madras Letters Patent. The suit is brought for the recovery of damages for trees cut and removed by the defendants. They are said to be trees in a plantation situated outside the limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiffs case is that this plantation wherein the trees stood is vest