Short Note : 1. On 2.4.1968 the non-applicant presented an application before the S.D.M. alleging that he had been collecting flowers and fruits from 22 Mahua trees and he was in lawful possession of the same, but the applicants were trying to forcibly dispossess the non-applicant and had threatened him to stop collecting the Mahua flowers and fruits. The applicants contended that the 22 Mahua trees were in the fields of the applicant No. 1 and who was recorded as Bhumiswami of the fields. The S.D.M. passed the final order in favour of the non-applicant which had been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. It was contended that the Courts below had no jurisdiction to take action under section 145 of the Code because the dispute was not regarding possession of immovable property and if at all any action could be taken, it could have been taken under section 147 of the Code as the right of passage of the non-applicant into the fields of the applicant No. 1 was in dispute. 2. Section 145 applies to dispute over possession of land itself but in section 147 there is no dispute as to possession but the dispute is about right to use particular land or water claimed as an easement or otherwise. Though section 145 is regarding dispute concerning land or water but section 145 (2) defines land or water to include buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land and the rents or profits of any such property. The Mahua fruits and flowers are clearly the produce of land and covered by section 145 (2). The Courts below, therefore, rightly took action under section 145 of the Code. Emperor vs. Narsingdas, AIR 1934 Nag. 112, relied on. Maharaja Suraykanta vs. Maharaja Jogdindra, 11 CWN 198 distinguished. Revision dismissed.