The duty of the appellant to demonstrate the lower court's judgment was wrong and the need for definite findings on the plaintiff's title and possession.

Beasley, J.

1. The appellant here was the plaintiff in the District Munsifs Court. His suit was for a declaration that the suit lands belonged to him and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the lands and interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment of it. The District Munsif gave the plaintiff the declaration asked for and the injunction. The Subordinate Judge, however, reversed the District Munsifs judgment, and as regards item 1 of the suit lands, did not record a finding either as to the plaintiffs title or upon the point as to whether or not he was in possession of that land. He found that defendant 3 was in possession of a portion of that land, namely 15 cents, and as there was evidence to support that finding we are not going to interfere with it. He does not give any definite finding with regard to the remainder of the land, but quite rightly took the view that with regard to that portion of the land which he has found defendant 3 to be in possession of, it was not open to him to give the plaintiff a mere declaration, the claim for an injunction having been dismissed and there being no claim for possession. Therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge was in our opinion quite right in his view of the law that it did not entitle him under the Specific Relief Act to give a mere declaration only. But he has evidently found considerable difficulty in coming to a conclusion with regard to the question of title to the remainder of the land. He is nevertheless bound, as he was delivering a reversing judgment, to give definite findings upon the case. This case must, therefore, go back to him with the direction that he is to record a finding both on the question of the plaintiffs title and as to his possession of the remainder of the land.

2. There is another point which arises on items 2 and 3 of the claim, the learned Subordinate Judge has found that as regards those items the suit must be dismissed because in his view the plaint does not disclose any cause of action in respect of it. With great respect to the learned Subordinate Judge we think that he was wrong in taking that view. What happened was this: The suit, as originally framed, was against one defendant only. Subsequently, in consequence of the written statement put in by defendant 1 in which he said that defendants 2 and 3 were claiming an interest in the suit lands, the plaint was amended. Defendants 2 and 3 were brought on record and an amended paragraph was put in the plaint, It is now argued before us that that paragraph does not disclose any cause of action against defendants 2 and 3 (only defendant 3 is represented here). That paragraph does not of course say in terms that the relief sought against defendants 2 and 3 is against them as persons who are denying the plaintiffs title. That would be exactly following the wording of Section 42, Specific Relief Act. But we have to consider what really was in the mind of the plaintiffs pleader when he so drafted that amended paragraph, and we think that it was intended by him to make a claim under Section 42, Specific Relief Act, and against defendants 2 and 3 as persons who were interested in denying the plaintiffs title. After all, this is a mofussil pleading and we must not take those pleadings exactly as they are drafted and hold them strictly against the pleaders and their clients, but a good deal of latitude is to be allowed. What we have got to do is to see what was really intended and in this case, in our view, it was intended to claim against defendants 2 and 3 as persons interested in denying the plaintiffs title, in which case that claim has to be disposed of. Section 42, Specific Belief Act, gives a remedy to a person against all persons who not only claim an adverse interest to his own but against all those who may do so, and it is intended that all such claims may once and for all be determined in one suit.

3. Thinking as we do, that the suit as regards items 2 and 3 wa