(1.) This is the Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, but, on appeal, it was eventually dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Hence this second appeal by the Plaintiff.
(2.) There was a previous appeal to the lower appellate Court, which succeeded and ended in a remand to the learned trial Judge (Munsif), and thereafter, on appeal, as stated above, from the decree, last passed by the learned trial Judge, the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed, necessitating the present second appeal by the Plaintiff.
(3.) The disputed property was comprised in C.S. plot No. 9, which had an area of 36 acres. There was, according to the Plaintiff, a partition between the original owners on October 19, 1927, by which his vendor Surendra, one of the original co-sharers, was allotted the eastern half of the above C.S. plot, which comprised the disputed property and which, in turn, was sold to the Plaintiff by Surendra on May 9, 1953. The actual dispute related to the kha schedule property, which comprised the north-eastern corner portion of the above partitioned property, allotted to the Plaintiff's vendor Surendra and purchased by him (Plaintiff), as aforesaid.