JUDGMENT P.C. Banerji, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a plot of land No. 425 together with trees standing thereon and for damages for the value of a tree cut down by the defendants. The Courts of first instance found that the land belonged jointly to the parties but that under a partition which took place in 1906, it had been allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. It was, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the land. It, however, held that the trees had been planted by the defendants' ancestors and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to them. That Court whilst decreeing the claim for possession dismissed it in respect to the trees. The defendants submitted to the decree of the Court below, but the plaintiffs appealed. The lower Appellate Court has held and, I think rightly, that as under the partition of 1900 the land was allotted to the plaintiffs and the trees were not excluded from the plaintiffs share, they must be deemed to have been allotted to the plaintiffs along with the land. This was the view held by a Full Bench of this Court in Muhammad Sadiq v. Laute Ram 23 A. 291 : A.W.N. (1901) 86. In that case it was held that trees growing upon land, the subject of a partition by the Revenue Authorities, go with the land and may properly he partitioned along with it by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, even if the trees had belonged to the parties jointly or to the defendants exclusively before the partition, after partition they become the property of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the lower Appellate Court was of opinion that it had not been established that the defendants' ancestors planted the trees and were the exclusive owners thereof before the partition. This may be an erroneous finding, but being one of fact must be accepted in second appeal. There is, therefore, no force in the appeal. I accordingly dismiss it.