Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued for a declaration of his title to the house and site "A" marked in the plaint plan and for an injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing upon his portion and from pulling down the wall between the portions A and B. Defendant 1 is the widow of the plaintiffs deceased brother. Her case was that the suit house was not divided between the parties but that for convenience of enjoyment, the plaintiff was in possession of one portion and that she was in possession of another portion of the same, and that the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff was the owner of one portion of the house was not correct. It would seem that, after the death of defendant ls husband, there was an arrangement evidenced by Ex. 1 dated 18th November 1901 by which certain properties were given to defendant 1 by the plaintiff. It would also seem that, subsequently, with reference to the lands covered by Ex. 1 there was an actual division by metes and bounds, but with regard to the suit house there was no division between the plaintiff and defendant 1 and that each occupied a particular portion of the h