Pearson, J. and Spankie, J.:— The Judge appears to have gone wrong in discussing the relative bearing of s. 29, Act IX of 1871, and of s. 28, Act XY of 1877, to the case. The former Act if applicable at all would not have been inapplicable for the reason assigned by the lower appellate Court, that the suit is for trees and s. 29 refers to lands only and hereditary office. Land comprehends what it covers and would include immoveable property as recognized and defined in s. 2(5), Act I of 1868. The judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Ganga Gobind Mundul v. The Collector of 24-Pergunnahs (1) settled the law, that continuous possession for upwards of twelve years not only bars the remedy, but practically extinguishes the title of the true owner in favour of the possessor. It is remarked in a recent decision of the Presidency Court in Gossain Dass Chunder v. Issur Chunder Nath (2) that the construction which the Presidency Court has given to the law laid down by the Privy Council is not only that a twelve years' possession by a wrong-doer extinguishes the title of the rightful owner, but confers a good title on the wrong-doer. The Presidency authority is cited. In the case to which reference is here made the suit was to recover possession of certain rooms in a house, the Whole of which the plaintiff admitted once to have belonged to the defendant, but which he says was sold by the defendant to his (plaintiff's) brother in the year 1857 or 1858, and from which the defendant subsequently dispossessed the plaintiff. This suit resembles the one before us as comprehending something less limited than the Judge has allowed to the word land. The plaintiff failed to establish the title on which he based his claim, but he showed that he had been in possession of the property for upwards of twelve years. It was held that, this fact being determined in his favour, the defendant's title was extinguished.