Odgers, J.

1. Appeal No. 281 of 1925 is by the defendant. The suit corresponding was C.S. No. 29 of 1924 and asked for possession of A and B schedule lands and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to lands in Schs. A, A-l and B. The defendant was in possession of A and B scheduled properties and the suit was decreed. Appeal 196 of 1926 is by the plaintiff (defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) corresponding to Suit No. 61 of 1924 which was for recovery of A-l schedule properties of which possession had been awarded to plaintiffs (in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) by an order under Section 145 Criminal P.C. This was dismissed.

2. C.R.P. 626 of 1925 corresponds to O.S. No. 1 of 1925 which was a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession of A and B schedule properties. The plaintiff was defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924, and the suit was dismissed. Hence the defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924 is the appellant in both the appeals and the petitioners in the C.R.P. before us.

3. Appeal No. 281 of 1925 (0. S. No. 29 of 1924) had been argued as the main appeal. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged trespass by the defendant on A schedule lands in April 1916. Prior to that da