JUDGMENT

Coldstream, J. - Gajja, father of the present appellant, sued against the defendants respondents to recover Rs. 25 on account of mangoes taken by them from two mango trees and Rs. 15 on account of damage done by them to the crops on the land on which the mango trees stood, alleging that the land was his and the trees also. The respondents alleged that the land and trees were joint property of the parties. The first issue framed was whether the trees and the land on which they stood were joint. During the course of the suit Gajja died and was replaced by the minor son Bakhsi.

2. The Subordinate Judge found that one trees belonged to Bakhsi and the other to the respondents, and that no damage had been done to the crop other than the mangoes. He gave a decree for Rs. 10 which ho estimated to be the value of the mangoes taken by respondents from the plaintiff's tree. The respondents appealed and the Senior Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion on the evidence that the field on which the tree in respect of which the decree had been passed stood on land belonging to the defendants. He accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit. Bakhsi has appealed urging various grounds on which he disputes the justice of the lower appellate Court's decision.

3. I may say at the outset that counsel agree that the fruit of each tree belongs to the owner of the land on which the tree stands and that, apart from the preliminary point taken by the respondent's counsel as to the admissibility of the appeal, the only question is to whom belongs the land on which the tree stands in respects of whose fruit Bakhsi got a decree. Respondents counsel naturally opposes the appeal on the ground that the finding in dispute is one of fact and no second appeal lies. To this it is replied by Mr. Mehr Chand for the appellant that the finding is no doubt one of fact but as the finding is against the contention on which the respondents based their case, namely, that the land and both trees were joint, the judgment is contrary to law. Reference is made to Ramgopal v. Shamskhaton [1893] 20 Cal 93, Baj Singh v. Partap Singh AIR 1923 Lah 497 and Malraju Lakshmi Venkayyamma Row v. Venkatadri Appa Raw AIR 1921 P C 27. Against this contention respondents' counsel cites the principle laid down in Firm Sundar Das-Vir Bhon v. Firm Jassa Singh Jiwan Singh AIR 1926 Lah 417. This ruling does not appear to me to be relevant in the present circumstances where the sole question was whether a tree was joint property or was the property of the plaintiff.

4. I have no hesitation in accepting the contention that this appeal lies on the ground that the decision in favour of the respondents being based on a finding which is dead against the case set up by them is contrary to law.

5. The trial Court went most carefully into the evidence and its conclusions are I think correct for the reason stated by it in detail. There is statutory presumption that the current revenue records are correct, a presumption which the lower appellate Court has apparently ignored. The records support the trial Court's finding as to the ownership of the tree found to be on the field No. 1153. I accept the appeal and deciding that the tree found by the trial Court to belong to the plaintiff does belong to him, remand the case for disposal to the lower appellate Court in accordance with the finding to which it may come on the question to what damages, if any, the plaintiff is entitled.