| the possession of the appellant commenced after his application for registration was rejected in 1919 and the improvements if any must have been effected only thereafter with full knowledge that the title to the lands was in dispute between the illom and the government is unassailable. the court had earlier adverted the fact that after the application for registration was rejected the appellant tried to get himself impleaded in the suit filed by the illom against the state which application was also rejected and so the claim that his possession was bona fide or that he was a bona fide trespasser has no validity this finding is fortified by section 5 of the act which provides that from and after the commencement of the act it shall not be lawful for any person to occupy land which is the property of the government whether poramboke or not without the permission from the government or such officer of the government as may be empowered in that behalf. in view of this specific provision the contravention of which is punishable under section 6 thereof his conduct in applying for registration and for getting himself impleaded in the suit of the illom against the government would show that he knew that the land was government land or land in which the government had a claim. this view of ours is supported by the case of clark and another vs gaskarth. that was a case of a trespass for breaking and entering the closes of the plaintiffs and tearing up digging up cutting down and carrying away the plaintiff 's trees plants roots and seeds growing on the closes. notice of this trespass was given to the defendant at the time of the distress the sum of pound 281 6 section was due from the plaintiffs to the defendant for rent in respect of the nursery ground. the question before the court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover against the defendant damages caused to them by cutting down and carrying away the plaintiffs trees. the court rejected the contention that the trees and shrubs could be detrained and held that the word product in the eighth section of the statute did not extend to trees and shrubs growing in a nurseryman 's ground but that it was confined to products of a similar nature with those specified in that section to all of which the process of becoming ripe and of being cut gathered made and laid up when ripe was incidental. in our view therefore trees are not included within the meaning of other products raised on the land in section 9 of the act and there is therefore no obligation on the government to give notice of forfeiture under that section. the appellant was not a mere trespasser and had deliberately entered upon the lands knowing full well that he had no right claim or title to the lands or had in any manner a right to enter the land and has been rightly evicted as a trespasser. |