JUDGMENT Sinha, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit for possession of two plots of land. The Plaintiffs admittedly the zamindar of the village. The plots of land are Nos. 1 and 2. The Plaintiff came to Court on the allegation that the Defendants had recently committed acts of trespass and dispossessed him. Certain other allegations were made on which it is not necessary to dwell. 3. The Defendants contested the suit on the ground that they were occupancy tenants and have, as such, been in the occupation of the plots since the time of their forefathers. They claimed the plots as appurtenant to their tenancy and also alleged that they had been using them for tethering their cattle and sundry other purposes. 4. The learned Munsif found that the Defendants had failed to establish that the plots of land were appurtenent to their tenancy. He, however, found that the Defendants, cattle-trough had existed for more than twelve years over plot No. 2. the result, he decreed the suit with regard to plot No. 1, but dismissed it with regard to plot No. 2. He, however, made it clear that the proprietary right of the Plaintiff, even with regard to plot No. 2, would remain unaffocted. 5. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge agreed with the learned Munsif with regard to plot No. 1, but held that the Plaintiff was entitled to a decree even as regards plot No. 2, because, in his view, a cattle-trough, which stood on plot No 2, could not be called a work of a permanent character. 6. The Defendants are before me in second appeal. 7. The learned Counsel contends that the view of the law taken by the Court below that the plots of land were not appurtenant to their tenancy, inasmuch as their possession was not contemporaneous with the tenancy, Is wrong. I do not agree. The view taken by the Court below is based upon the Pull Bench decision of Babu Lal v. Ram Prasad, 1938 AWR (H C) 823. 8. The learned Counsel, Mr. Baleshwar Prasad, however, strenuously contends that the decree of the Court below so far as plot No. 2 was concerned, was wrong. There was no question of a work of a permanent character. 8. The learned Counsel, Mr. Baleshwar Prasad, however, strenuously contends that the decree of the Court below so far as plot No. 2 was concerned, was wrong. There was no question of a work of a permanent character. If the Defendants had been in the use and occupation of the plot and if their cattle-trough existed on it for mora than twelve years, they cannot be ejected. The view, which commended itself to the learned Munsif, it is argued, was the only proper view. 9. He relied upon Kamlapat Dubey and Others Vs. Ram Raj and Others, AIR 1924 All 103 . The learned Judge held The Plaintiffs were not enttiled to have those troughs removed though the proprietary title of the Plaintiffs to the land in dispute would remain unaffected. 10. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon a number of authorities in support of bis contention that it was not open to a tenant to set up or acquits adverse possession as against the landlord. He has relied upon Ghandrika Prasada v. B. B. & C. I. Ry. Co., 1935 AWR 459 : AIR 1835 P C 59. That was the case of a lessor and a lessee and does not afford even a remote parallel to the case before me. 11. He also relied upon Incha Ram v. Bande Ali Khan, (1910) 8 ALJ 877 (F.B.). This case is only authority for the proposition that there is a very strong presumption in favour of the zamindar's possession. With this proposition no one need or can have a quarrel. But the question is, is it an unrebuttable presumption ? The learned Counsel is unable to invite my attention to any passage in the judgments of the Full Bench in support of this view. I have no doubt, in my mind, that a very strong proof of adverse possession was necessary as against the zamindar, Beyond this I am not prepared to go. 12. The question really is whether the presumption has been rebutted and the tenants have, after remaining in undisturbed possession, acquired any rights. Are they liable to be ejected ? In my opinion, they are not. 13. The line of distinction between a plea of adverse possession, in, normal circumstances, and a plea by the tenant against the Zamindar, may be very thin(sic), but, nevertheless, it is a clear and well-defined line. Are they liable to be ejected ? In my opinion, they are not. 13. The line of distinction between a plea of adverse possession, in, normal circumstances, and a plea by the tenant against the Zamindar, may be very thin(sic), but, nevertheless, it is a clear and well-defined line. In the case of the former, the person setting up adverse title, acquires, after the lapse of twelve years, the entire bundle of rights; in the case of the latter the tenant acquires a restricted right-- immunity from demolition for the construction, without detriment to the proprietary right of the Zamindar. 14. I am, therefore, of opinion that the learned Civil Judge was wrong in decreeing the demolition of the cattle-trough standing in plot No. 2. 15. It now remains to consider whether the Defendants are entitled to retain possession only of the area actually covered by the cattle-trough or of the entire plot. 16. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the whole of the plot must go with the cattle trough, as possession of part is, in law, the possession of the whole. 17. The learned Counsel for the Respondent on the, on the other hand, argues that It is only the area which is actually covered by the cattle-trough, which will go with it. 18. In my opinion, the contentions of the learned Counsel go to extremes and the truth lies somewhere between the two. 19. The learned Counsel for the Appellants is not right in his contention that in every case, possession of the part is possession of the whole. The benefit of this principle cannot be extended to the case of adverse possession. Nor is it correct to say that the Defendants should get only the area actually covered by the cattle-trough. In may opinion, they will be emitted to the land covered and a portion of the adjoining area, which is necessary for their access to and use of the cattle-trough. In this view of the matter it is necessary to find out the exact position. 20. I, therefore, send down the following issues: (1) What is the area actually covered by the cattle-trough? and (2) What is the area required by the Defendants for access to and use of the cattle-trough? 21. The parties will be entitled to produce fresh evidence. 22. 20. I, therefore, send down the following issues: (1) What is the area actually covered by the cattle-trough? and (2) What is the area required by the Defendants for access to and use of the cattle-trough? 21. The parties will be entitled to produce fresh evidence. 22. The learned Civil Judge is requested to return bis findiags within two months from this date. 23. On receipt of the findings the usual ten days will be allowed for objections.