RAJENDER SINGH & ORS. versus SANTA SINGH & ORS.

RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

SANTA SINGH & ORS. August 16, 1973

[K. K. MATHEW AND M. ff. BEG, JJ.J

Lis pendens-Transfer of Property Act, (4 of 1882)-Sectio11 52-Whether arrestis "the running of the period of /imitation during the pendency of the suit.

Umi1ation Act (9 of 1908), Art. 142-Scope of.

The respondents had filed suit in 1940 claiming title to and possession of certain lands in the pos~ession of the appellants and the suit ended in favour of the appellants in 1958.

Jn 1959. the appellar/s filed suit for possession against the re·spondents asserting that the respondents had taken illegal and forcible possession of those lands after the decision of the High Court in 1958. The respondents, however,. claimed that they had taken possession of the lands even in 1944 and that they bad been sin.:e then in adverse possession openly, continuously and exclusively as owners.

The trial court found that the respondents had been in possession of the lands from 1946· to the date of the appelJants' suit. The firsti appellate i;ourt, however, held that the doctrine of /is pendens prevented the rights of the respondents from maturing. The fligh Court, accepting the concurrent findings as to the iact of posses'lion of the respondents held that the adverse possession of the tleflCndants commenced during th!! pendency of the earlier suit and once having begUn to run would not stop running merely because of the pendency of the defendantis' suit for possession which was dismiissed in 1958.

In appeal to this Court, it was contended that,

(i) portion of the lruid entered in revenue record as Banjar could not be adversely possessed at all and must be deemed to be in the possession of plain-tiffs on the principle that possession follows title;

(ii) Art. 141 of the Limitation Act was not applicable; and

(iii) the doctrine of /is pend>ens CO"tained in s. 52 of the T.P. Act 188Z arrested 1he running of the period of 1imitation during the pendency of the respondents' suit filed in 1940.

Dismi,.;;ing the appeal,

HELD: (I) It is not correct that b•njar land was incapable of adverse possession. Even if Banjar land could not be cultivated it was not per se incap-able of being actually a.nd physically possessed by use for other purposes such as building or storing of wood or crops, apart from cultivation. Further, this question which involved investigation of fresh facts, was not raised in the court• below. [3850-E] ·

(2) (o) On the allegations of the ap~llants in their plaint of •lleged pesscs-sion and dispossession, the case fell within the ambit of art. 142, Limitation Act. The question whethe-r the suit was within time when assertions were made attracting the .ipplication of the article became question of proof of title itself~ Without proof of subsisting title the suit must fail; [385F-G]

Bindhva<lwl Chand & OrS v. Ram Gharib Chand & Oro, A.I.R. 1934 All. 993 (F.ll.) approved.

2(b) Tt is not necessary tha<t the issue frained must mention the provision Of law tc be applied. It is the duty of the court, in view of s. 3 of the Limitation Act, to npply the bar of limitation, whether on patent facts it is applicable even though not specifically pleaded. [386D-E]

(3) (a) An c.\tinction of title will not be hit by the doctrine of /is pende11s simply b-;!cau·.;e it was an extin::tion during the pendency.~f suit. If so \.Vide was 1he sweep of ~. 52, Transfer of Property Act, the provision would have been differently worded. [386A-ll]

( b) .f·urther such case in \Vhich. the extinction of title took place by an applic1ttion of ihe specific afid mandatory provisions of the Limitation Act, would not b~ governed by provision of an Act relating to "transfer" as defined by ·s. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act but by·the Limitation Act exdusively. (3868] Jayara111 Muda/iar v. Ayyaswan1j & Ors. [1972] 2 S.C.C. 200 followed. ( c) The do::trine of /is pcndens was intended to strike at attempts by parties to litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of court, in which c!ispute on iights or interests in immovable property was pending by private dealings which niight ren1ove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the, court's power to decide pendnig dispute or frustrate its decree. Alienees acqu:ring any hnmovabie property during litigation over it were held to be boun_d,, by .an application of the doctrine, by the decree pa-.>sed in the suit even though they might not have been impleaded in it. The act of taking illegal possession of immovable property or continuance of wrongful possession, even if the wr-0ng doer be party to the pending suit, was not "dealing with" the property otherwise than by its transfer so as to be covered by s. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The prohibition which jJreve:its the immovable property being "transferred or otherwise dealt with'' hy parry is apparently directed against some action which would have an immediate effe.:t, similar to or comparable with 'hat of transfer, but for the p-rinciple of /is pendens. Taking of illeg .. l pas· "Session or it·s con:inut1nc·~ are one sided wrongful act£ and not bilate-ral transac· tions of kicd ~·hich ordinarily constitute "deals" or dealings with property. They cannot confer itnmediate rights on the possessor. Contin11ed illegal posses· "Sion ripe·ns into a: legally enforceable right only after the prescribed period of time has elapsed. It matures into right due to inaction ar.d not due to the a:tion of tlh: injured party which can approach court of appropriate jurisdk· lion for redress by suit to regain possession. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was not meant to serve indirt..;tly as provision or subs!itute for provision of the Limitation Act to exclude time. [387E-388C]

The object of the law of Limitation was to prevent disturbance or depriva. tion of what might have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what might have been Jost by party's own inaction, negligence or laches. If section 52 of the Tr~nsfer of Property Act was really intended to strike at the running of the period of ]imitation, it would have made it clear that the law excludes the period spent in ar.y litigation from computalion. Exclusiun of ti1ne in compu!ing periods of limitation \Vas diffeTent subject altogether to which the whole of Part TII of the Limitation Act was devoted. Section 14 deals with exclusion of time of proceeding ho11a .fide in court without jurisdiction. Where suit was instituled Jong after the period of limitation bad expired, section 52 of the Transfer of Prop~rty A;.:t .:;ould nnt apply at all. The effect of s. 3 Limitation Act was that it expressly precluded exclusion of time on ground outside the Limitation Act. [388E-H] '

Subhaiya Panda,.·anz v. Moha111111ad /IJustapha Afarcayar, 1.L.R. 46 l\f3J. 751: Narayan Jira11gouda Patif & Anr. ·v. Purtobai & Ors. A.LR. 1945 P.C. 5 approved.

(d) Courts of justice cannot legislate for reconstruct law contained in statute Or introduce C"xceptions when sta!utory law debars them from doing so. Even hard ciJ.:um'Hances of case do not justify the adoption of such course. -389E!

(e) Jt is not necessary to give any decision on any dispute b~tween co· <lefendanfs-re·sponden[1]s regardini:r the right to possess any property which n1ight have vested _i~ the Custodian, Evacuee Property, who was co.respondent. be· -cause, dec1s1on on such dispute was not necessary for deciding the instant case. [389G-HJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10'27 of ·1967. Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree da.ted ~e 4th day of March 1965 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh 1n Regular Second Appeal No. 1532 of 1961.

Urmila Kapoor and Kam/ash Bansal, for the appellants.

S. C. Manchanda, N. K. Aggarwal and M. L. Aggarwal, for res-pondent; 1-14 and 16-30.

S. N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 15

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BEG, J .-The plaintiffs-appellants, before us by grants of certificate of fitness of the case for an appeal had filed suit on 20-4-1959 for possession against the defendants-respondents, of 331 Kanals and 11 Marlas of laqd the Khasra numbers of which are given in the plaint. The plaintiffs were the sons of Smt. Premi, daughter of Sham Singh (Deceased), the original owner of the plots, and of Smt. Malan, who was the widow of Sham Singh, had gifted the plots in dispute in 1935, half and half. to the plaintiffs and Smt. Khemi, the younger sister of their deceased mother, Smt. Premi. It appears that Smt. Khemi, who was issueless, had also made gift in favour of the plaintiffs before her death in 1944. The plaintiffs are said to have obtained possession of the whole land in dispute thus gifted to them. But, as there was consi-derable uncertainty at that time about the rights of the daughters and the powers of a-widow to donate during her ,life time under the customary law in Punjab, whicb was applicable to \he parties, the defendants-res-pondents, the 8th degree collaterals of Sham Singh, had filed suit on 3-7-1940 for possession of the land in dispute. \!'his suit had been stayed from 1941 to 29-5-1946, under the Indian So! liers (Litigation) Act, 1925, to the benefits of which the plaintiffs were entitled. It appears that there was also dispute over mutation of names between the plamtiff5 and defendants-respondents in revenue courts which ended finally by an order in favour of the appellants donees passed by the Financial Commissioner of Punjab on 13-12-1946. Defendants-Res-pondents' suit of 1940, for declaration of rights and possession, renu-mered in 1949, ended with the judgment and decree of Division Bench of the Punjab High Court passed in favour of the appdlants on 21-11-1958.

The plaintiffs asserted, in their suit No. 179 of 1959 filed on 16-4-1959'. now before u~ in appeal, .that the defendants-;~spondents had. t.aken illegal ~nd forcible possess10n of the land in dispute after the dec1s10n of the High Court on 21-11-1958, and that, as the dcfendants-respondents refused to deliver possession of the Ja:nd to the plaintiffs, ~hey were compelled to fil.e their suit for possession. The defendants-' espondents, however, claimed that they had taken possession over the whole of the Ian~ in dispute after the death of Smt. Khemi, issueless, in 1944, and that, smce then, they had been in open, continuous, exclusive possession as owners, adversely to the rest of the world. Hence, accord-m& to the defendants-respondents, the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limi-tat10n.Ther~ cannot be the least doubt, after looking at the plaint, that the plaintiffs-appellants, having alleged possession and dispossession, for which they claimed ·•lief by delivery back of possession of the land in dispute to them, the case fell squarely within the ambit of Art. 142 of the Limitation Act of 1908 .. The aefendants-respondents had, how-ever, pleaded the bar of limitation as well as acquisition of title by their adverse possession for over 12 years.

The Trial Court had framed the first three issues which had direct bearing on the question whether Art. 142 or 144 of the Limitation Act ot 1908 would be applicable. These issues were :-

"I. Whether the plaintiffs obtained the possesston of the

land in dispute through the Tehsildar near about the date

13-12-1946 as alleged by them in para 3 of the plaint'/ O.P.

2. Wltether the defendants took J?OSSession of the land in dispute after 21-11-1958 as alleged m para S of the plaint? O.P.

3. Whether the defendants have become owners of the

land in dispute through adverse possession ? 0 .P ."

The Trial Court rightly placed the burden of proof of the first two issues on the plaintiffs and of tlfo third issue upon the defendants. It took up and decided the three issues together holding that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by Art. 142 of the Limitation Act. The first Appellate Court also rejected the plaintiffs' case of acquisition of possession on 13-12-1946 and then of dis-possession after 21-11-1958. It accepted the clefendants' version. It observed that the "oral evidence coupled with the entries in the revenue records conclusively established that the poss~ssion over the suit land right from 1946 up to the present time was not that of the plaintiffs, but, that of the defendants", who had been asserting their own vroprietary rights as collaterals of Sham Singh, the husband of Smt. Malan. Although, no issue was framed on the appli-cability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 18.82, to such case, yet, the question appears to have been argued for the first time before the first Appellate Court which, relying upon decision of the Nagpur High Court in Sukhubai v. Eknath Bellappa(l), held that, des-pite the established possession of the defendants-respondents for over twelve years, the doctrine of /is pendens prevented the rights to the de-fendants-respondents from maturing by adverse possession. It held that the possession of the defendants-respondents became adverse when their appeal in their suit for possession was dismissed by the Punjab High Court on 21-11-1958. Thus, the first Appellate Court had ~eally used Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as though it was pro-vision for excluding the penod of time spent in litigation in computing the prescribed period of limitation. The question whether the doctrine , of /is pendens. contained in Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, would go\'ern such ease was referred by Division Bench to Full Bench of the Punjab High Court.

A. N. Grover, J., giving the majority opinion of the Full Bench of three judges of the Punjab High Court, held that, 0n the concurrent

IJt

findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, the adverse possession of the defendants, who were appellants before the High Court, commenced during the pendency of the earlier suit, and, once having begun to run, could not stop i:unning merely because of the pendency of the defen-dants' suit for possession which was finally dismissed by the High Court on 21-11-1958. On the other hand, I. D. Dua, J., expressing his mino-rity opinion of the Full Bench of the High Court, held that the doctrine of /is pendens, contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, would enable the plantiffs-appellants to overcome the consequences of defendants' adverse possession until 21-11-1958 so tha\ the doctrine Qi /is pendens could operate as provision enabling exclusion of time dur-ing the pendency of the defendants' suit of 1940.

One of the questions attempted to be raised here, involving investi-· gation of fresh facts, was that portion of the land, entered in revenue records as "Banjar", cannot be adversely possessed at all because it is vacant so that it must be deemed to be in the possession of plaintiffs on the principle that possession follows title. The plaintiffs had not taken. such case even in tbeir replication in answer to the written statement of the defendants. Apart from the fact that the question does not· appear to have been raised in the courts below, we think that the plain-D tiffs' admission of dispossession by the defendants, implying that the defendants-respondents were in actual adverse fJOSSession of all the land· in dispute, debars pl?intiffs' learned Counsel from raising such ques-tion now. Furthermore, the patent fallacy undedying such conten-tion is that Banjar land is incapable of adverse possession. It may be that Banjar land cannot be cultivated, but, we do not think that it coµld [ possibly be urged that it is per se incapable of being actually physically possessed by use for other purposes, such as building or storing of wood or crops, aparts from cultivation. We will say no more about this un-susta:oable contention.

It was then urged that Art. 142 was no· applicable to lhi3 ca'e and that no question as to its applicab"li.y should have been decided. We fail to see how such contentio~ cnuld be ad,,anced iP view or the· assertions in the plaint which clear!" compelled the application of Article 142 As was held bv Full Bench of the Allahabad High Coun. in Bindhyachal Chand & Ors. v. Ram Gharib Chand & Ors.('). the question whether the suit is within time, when the J?laintiffs make as<ertions attracting the application of Article 142, becomes question of proof of title itself. Without proof of subsisting title the plaintiffs' suit must obviously fail. It was said there by Sulaiman, C.J. (at page 999) :-

"In cases falling strictly under Art. 142, in which the only qu~stion is one of discont;nuance of possession of the plaintiff and not of adverse possession of the defendant, the question of limitation in one sense becomes the ouestion of title, because ti bv virtue of S. 28, Limitation Act. if the claim is barred by time, the title must be d~emed to be extinguished."

It is true that the extinction of title took place in the case before us· .during the pendency of the suit. But, it has to be borne in mind that an extinction of title will not hit by the doctrine of Us pendens simply because it is an extiiiction during the pendency of suit. If so wide was the sweep of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act.this provision would have been differently worded. We are of opinion that case in which the extinction of title takes place by an application of the specific 1111d mandatory provisions of the Limitation Act falls outside the scope of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It would not be govern-ed by provisions of an Act relating to "transfer", defined by Section 3 of ~he Transfer of Property Act, but by the Limitation Act exclusively.

It is immaterial in the case before us, from.the point of view of extinc-uon of title by an application of Section 28 of the Limitation Act of 1908, whether Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act is appli-ble. The findings of the Courts below, accepted as corerct and binding by A. N. Grover, J., in the majority judgment of the Punjab High Court, would make Article 144 also of fhe Act clearly applicable to the case. All the elements of an open, adverse, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession of the Defendants for over 12 years were present here.It would be idle to contend in the case before us, in view of the plead-ings of the parties and the issues framed and decided, that the applica-bility of Article 142 of the Limitation Act was either not put in issue by pleadings of the parties or an issue on its applicability was not framed. The first two issues framed have direct hearing on the applicabHity of Article 142. It is not necessary that the issue farmed must mention the provision of law to be applied. Indeed, it is the duty of the Court, in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, to apply the bar of limitation where, on patent facts, it is applicable even though not specifically ·pleaded. Therefore, we find no force in the submissions based on the supposed inapplicability of Article 142 of the Limitation Act of 1908 ·or assumed defects in procedure adopted in applying it.

The only question of some importance which could be said to ari~e ·m this case is : Voes the doctrine of Lis pendens, contained in Sec. 52 of ·the Transfer of Property Ac., arrest the running of the period of limita-tion during the pendency of the suit of the defendants-respondents filed on 3-7-1940, and, finally decided in •econd appeal by the High Court on.21-11-58?

We may here set out i>ection 52 of the Transfer of Property Act ·which runs as follows :

"52. During the pendency in any Court having authori.ty within the limits of India excluding the State of J ammu & Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Cen~ral Government of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the p:·operty cannot be transferred or other wise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect'the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of Court and on such terms as it may impose.

Cen~ral

Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, the pen-dency of suit or proceeding shall be deemed to commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the instit11-uon of the ,Proceeding in· Court of competent jurisdiction, and to contmue until the suit or proceeding has been disposed of by final decree or order and complete satisfaction or dis-charge· of such decree or order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any periDd of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force". . . · The background of the provision set out above was indicated by 011.e of us (Beg, J.) in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami & Ors.(1 ). There, the following definition of /is pendens from Corpus Juris Secun-c dum (Vol. LIV, p. 570) was cited:

"Lis pendens literally means pending suit, and the doc-trine of /is p_endens has been defined as the jurisdiction, power, ·or control which court acquires over property involved in · suit pending the continuance of the action, and until final judg-ment therein".

It was observed there :

"Expositions of the doctrine indicate that the need for it arises from the very n~ture of the jurisdiction of Court~ and their control over the subject-matter of litigation so that par-ties litigating before it. may not remove' any part of the subject-matter outside the power of the Court to deal with it and thus make the proceedings infructuous."

It was observed there :

The doctrine.of /is pendens was intend>'d to strike at attempts by parties to litigation to circumvent the jurisdiction of court, in which dispute on rights or interests in immovable property is pending, by private dealings which may remove the subject matter of litigation from the ambit of the court's power to decide pending dispute of frustrate its decree. Alienees acquiring any immovable property_ during litiga-F tion over it are held to be bound, by an application of the docume, oy the decree passed in the suit even though they may not have been tmpleaded in 1t. The whole object of the doctrine of fzs pendens is to subject parties to the litigation as well as others, who seek to acquire rights in immovable property which are the subject matter of litiga-tion, to the power and jurisdiction of the Court so as to prevent the cbject of pending action from being defeated, · It is very difficult to view the act of taking illegal possession of immo-vable property or continuance of wrongful possession, even if the \\Tong doer l:e party to the pending suit, as "dealing with" the property otherwise than by its transfer so as to be covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The prohibition which prevents the immov-able property being ~·transferred or otherwise dealt with" by party is apparently directed against some action which would have · an imme- · diate effect, similar to or comparable with that of transfer, but for the principle of lis pendens. Taking of illegal possession or its continuance

(!) (19721(2) s.c.c 200@ 217.

neither r~mble nor are comparable to transfer. They are one >ided wrongful aots and not bilateral transactions of kind which ordinarily constitute "deals" or dealings with property (e.g. contracts to sell). They cannot confer immediate rights on the possessor. Continued illegal possession ripens into legally enforceable right only after the prescribed period of time has elapsed. It matures into right due to inlfction and not due to the action of the injured party which can ap-proach Court of appropriate jurisdiction for redr~s by suit to regain possession. The relief against the wrong done must be soug\lt within the time prescribed. This is the only moJe of redress provided by law for such cases .. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was not meant to serve, indirectly, as provision or substitute for provision of the Limitation. Act to exclude time. Such provision c6uld anJ would have been there in the Limitation Act, where it would appropria-tely belong, if the policy behind the law was lo have such provision.

The policy underlying statutes of limitation, spoken of as statutes of "repose" or of "peace",,mas been thus stated in Ha/sbury's Laws of England Vol. 24, p. 181 (para 330) :

"330. Policy ,of Limitation Acts. The courts have expres-

sed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitationnamely, ( 1) that long dormant claims 1 have more of c~uelty than justice in them, (2) that defen-dant might have lost the evidence to disprove stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pur-sue them witll reasonable diligence."

The object or ·the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or depreviation of wh~t may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by party's own inaction, negligence, or !aches. •.

If Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was really intended to strike at the running of the period of limitation, based on the ccinsi-derations mentioned above, it would· have made it clear that the law' excludes the period speqt in any litigation from computation. Exclusion of time in computing periods of limitation is a· different subject alto· gether to which the whole of Part III of the Limitation Act is devoted. There, we find Section 14, which deals with "exclusion of time of pro-ceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction". There are certain conditions for the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. One of these is that the plaintiff should have prosecuted, with due dili-gence, civil proceedings "founded upon the same cause of ac(ion". In the case before us, the cause of action arose, according to the plaintiffs, after the decision of the previous suit. The cause of action in the previous suit was entirely different. Indeed, it was the defendants-respondents who had sought relief there and set up cause of action. Section 14 of the Limitation Act of 1908, which is the only provision of the statute specifically dealing with exclusion of time spent in an· other litigation, could not obviously apply to the case now before us. The only mod~ of relief open to the plaintiffs was to have instituted suit of their own within the prescribed period of limitation. They

did institute .the suit now before us but did so long after the peripd of limitation had expired. In su<fu case Section 52 of the Transfl!r of Property Act could not, in our opinion, apply at all. The matter could only be covered, if at all, by some provision of the statute of limitation which. as already observed, makes no provision for such case. The effect of Section 3 of Limitation Act is that it expressly precfudes iexclusion of time on ground outside this Act even if it parades under the guise of doctrine which has no application whatsoever here.

The majority judgment of the Punjab High Court cites several cases to support the view that limitation would start running agai,nst the., plaintiffs-appellants when the defendants-respondents took pos;ession. We need mention only two of these cases : Subbaiya Pandaram v. Mohammad Mustapha .IJarcayar('), and, Narayan Jivanouda Patil & Ans. v. Puttabai & Ors.([2 ]) We are in complete agreement with the majority view.

It is not possible, in the absence of any provision which would en-title the plaintiffs to exclude time and thus bring their suit within 12 years period of limitation, to accept contention which would enable the plaintiffs to escape the mandatory provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act read with Section 28 and Article 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act of 1908. Courts of justice cannot legislate or reconstruct law contained i!1 statnate or introduce exceptions when statntory law debars them from doing so. Even hard circumstances of case do not justify the adoption of such course. Moreover, we fail to see how the plaintiffs could colllPlain of hardship when their own neglige11£!e or failure to act in time enabled defendants to acquire rights by reason of the operation of law of limitation with the wisdom or justice of which we are not concerned here.

claim was sought to be advanced on behalf of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, who is also defendant-respondent, based on the provisions of Section 8, sub. sec. 4 of the Administration of E~ee Property Act 1950. This question was not gone into by the Punjab High Court. As we are affirming the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court, dismissing t])e plaintiffs' suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation, it is not necessary for us to give any decision on any dispute between co-defendants-respondents regarding the right to pos-sess any property which may have vested in, the Custodian. Evacnee Property. decision on such dispute is not necessary for deciding 11 the case before us. There is, therefore, no question of res-judicata between co-defendants on the points raised. And, we cannot allow

the plaintiffs-appellants to raise any such question on behalf of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, as their learned Counsel seemed to be attempting to do, in desparate attempt to clutch at straw.

The result is that we affirm the judgment and decree of the Punjab High Court and dismiss this appeal. An application on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants (C.M.P. No. 2487 of 1967), seeking permission to introduce additional questions in respect of Banjar land, is al~o dis-B missed for the reasons already given. In the circumstances of this case, we order that the parties will bear their own costs throughout.

Appeal dismissed.