SESHAGIRI AIYANGAR Vs. SADACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are not prepared to hold that the lower Appellate Court s treatment of Exhibits D and K would justify interference.

(2.) The learned District Judge has, however, made no reference to Exhibits F and H series, and in view of the description of their purport in the District Munsif s judgment, we cannot assume that the District Judge considered them. In these circum-stances we must ask him to submit revised findings on the questions raised in the appeals with reference to them.

(3.) He has also made no reference to the fact that 2nd defendant in Original Suit No. 179 of 1911 (2nd Respondent in Second Appeal No. 753 of 1913) admitted plaintiff s claim fully in her written statement. The importance of this seems to, have been recognized in neither Court. For no issue was framed with reference to it, though on this pleading plaintiff was clearly entitled to a decree against 2nd defendant for any portion of the suit site found to be in her exclusive possession; and it was, therefore, necessary to ascertain the extent of such site, if any.