Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The appellants here, the plaintiffs in the suit, claimed a declaration of their title to waste land and a mandatory injunction against the defendants. In the District Munsifs Court and also in the first appellate Court they succeeded and got the declaration sought for. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession, that is to say, exclusive possession of this land as against the defendants. In second appeal, the learned Judge found as follows:

The Subordinate Judge has also found that the land has not been assigned to either party and that neither party has established title to it otherwise. He has found that the plaintiffs are now in possession, by which I understand he means exclusive possession; but he has not found for how long they have been in exclusive possession and the evidence on that question is neither clear nor satisfactory. That being so, in a suit in respect of a village nattam, it is clear that there is not the necessary foundation for even the declaration and injunction made by the Subordinate Judge.

2. The reference in that judgment to the failure of the Lower Court to find how long the p