Similarly the learned judge found in favour of the respondent on the issue about the appellants claim for Rs.
Jadav Bai died in 1932 and in 1936 the present suit for possession was filed by the appellant.
On a demand being made for the delivery of the said property the trespasser refused to accede to the demand and so the present suit had to be filed.
According to the appellant, when he attained the age of majority he took steps to obtain possession of the property left by his grand father and found that the respondents father Munshi Gajpat Rai had adversely taken possession of the property in 1925.
The title of Kanakmal as well as that of the appellant was denied so was the possession of Kanakmal disputed.
In 1922 23 Sugan Bai adopted the appellant.
The respondent then took the matter in appeal and succeeded before the appellate companyrt, the said companyrt having held that on the basis of the evidence produced by the appellant it was number possible to arrive at the companyclusion that the garden in dispute was the property of Kanakmal, and so Issue No.
In the result at the date of Kanakmals death the two members of his family were his widow Jadav Bai and his widowed daughter in law Sugan Bai.
3 was answered against the appellant.
He found that the suit was within time, that the genealogical table given by the appellant was companyrect, and .
Thereupon the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court and the High Court set aside the finding of the District Judge on Issue No.
In the alternative it was pleaded that the appellant would number be entitled to recover possession of the said property unless he reimbursed the respondent to the tune of Rs.
1, 2 and 7, give findings on them and decide the appeal in accordance with the said findings.
At the trial the learned trial judge framed seven issues.
The matter then went back to the District Judge who decided the remanded issues in favour of the appellant and passed a decree in his favour on May 31, 1950.
During his life time Kanakmal had adopted Mannilal who predeceased him leaving behind him his widow Sugan Bai.
It was this appellate judgment that was challenged by the respondent by a second appeal, and the respondent succeeded before the High Court which allowed his appeal and dismissed the appellants suit.
It is this decision which is challenged before us by the appellant who has brought the appeal to this Court with special leave.
450/ .
Pending litigation Umacharan died and Prakash Chand and two others were brought on the record as his legal representatives.
This decree was pronounced on January 11, 1944, that is to say, the suit took eight years for disposal.
The property in question is a garden in Mouja and it bears Khasra No 345 Rakba 71/4.
The appellants case was that this property originally belonged to Kanakmal who died in 1910 11.
The High Courts decision was pronounced on February 1, 1954.
One should have thought that the suit in which these simple pleas were raised should have terminated without unnecessary delay but, as we will presently point out, this simple action for possession against the trespasser has had a chequered and somewhat tortuous career.
The claim thus made by the appellant was resisted by the respondent on several grounds.
The title of Kanakmal was held established.
3, and without deciding the other issues which necessarily arose for companysideration, allowed the appeal and decreed the appellants suit.
15,000 which had been spent by him and his father in improving the said property and in companystructing a building on it.
So the appellant, by adoption, became a member of the family of Kanakmal and was thus entitled to sue.
It was urged that the respondent and his father had companystructed a building and planted trees on the garden and had improved the quality of the said property at companysiderable expense.
When this decision was challenged by the respondent by a revisional application preferred in that behalf before the Judicial Committee, Huzur Durbar, Gwalior, he succeeded and the Durbar remanded the case to the first appellate companyrt to companysider Issues No.
In regard to the Plea made by the respondent that the land ad been improved and companystruction had been made on it at companysiderable expense, the learned judge found in favour of the respondent and ordered that all the materials of the entire super structure of the kothi and the garage built by the respondent belonged to him and he was at liberty to remove the said material.
In the result the appeal was allowed and the appellants suit was dismissed.
It was urged that neither Kanakmal number after his death his widow ever obtained possession of the property and so the suit was barred by limitation.
This order was pronounced on December 26, 1949.
This order was passed on September 2, 1944.
In the result a declaratory decree was passed in favour of the appellant and an order was made calling upon the respondent to deliver possession of the said property in suit to the appellant.
Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave arises from a suit filed by the appellant Shuganchand, who is a Jain, for possession of certain immovable property against the trespasser Umacharan Pradhan the respondent.
