Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-non-applicant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 500/- as damages on the ground that the defendants-applicants had cut and removed a Mahua tree belonging to the plaintiff which stood on the embankment of his field. The defendants claimed that the tree belonged to them as it stood on the embankment of their field. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the first Additional District Judge, Durg, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 250/-. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the tree belonged to the plaintiff. It is against the judgment of the lower appellate Court that the present revision has been filed. Held : The learned counsel appearing for the defendants-applicants pointed out that the first appellate Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment formulated the point for determination wrongly by stating that the point to be determined is whether the intervening Medh of Khasra No 1240 and 1228/3 is the Ghasa Medh of defendant Anjuram. Whatever may be the defect in the formulation of the aforesaid point for determination, it is clear that the first appellate Court understood that the real point for determination was whether the Mahua tree belonged to the plaintiff or the defendants. This is the question which the appellate Court formulated in paragraph 11 of its judgment. This question was answered in favour of the plaintiff by giving a finding that the tree belonged to the plaintiff. In my opinion, there is no error of jurisdiction or illegality of irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, in the judgment under revision. Revision dismissed.