Reference for Bava Metzia 29:8

והא א"ל שמואל לרב חיננא בר שילת אמליך וכתוב שופרא שבחא ופירי

But if so, the produce [of the field should] also [be recoverable from encumbered property]? — [The case is one where the robber] has stood his trial as regards the capital [value of the field itself] but has not stood his trial as regards the produce. But how can this be determined?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could it be said with certainty that cases would arise where a person who acquired a field wrongfully would be tried for seizing the field itself but not for appropriating its produce? ');">⁸</span>

Jastrow