Horwill, J.

1. The finding of the lower Courts is that this property has been enjoyed adversely by the defendant from a time prior to 9th July, 1917, and that he has therefore perfected a title to the property by adverse possession. In S.A., it is contended that, by operation of law, possession was interrupted on 9th July, 1917.

2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has emphasised that when a symbolical delivery is given or where a Boundary Officer determines a Boundary and an application is not made to a Civil Court within a year, adverse possession is deemed by law to have been broken. By analogy, he contends that where a Court dismisses a claim petition it is not open to the defeated claimant to contend that he was in possession on the date of his claim petition. The effect of a symbolical delivery or a decision of a survey officer is clearly different from that resulting from a mere order of Court. In the case of a symbolical delivery, an amin actually goes to the disputed property and openly declares that a symbolical delivery is given, and the person in possession and other interested parties are informed by proclamation and otherwise that henceforth a certain perso