JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - This is one of those second appeals in which the only real difficulty is to ascertain with certainty what facts the lower Appellate Court intended to find, or must be taken to have found. The suit was one for recovery of possession over a certain plot of land and a tree situated thereon. If I rightly understand the pleadings there never was any question of title, strictly so called, in issue between the parties. The land in question is situated in the abadi, or inhabited site, of an agricultural village, and the proprietors of the1 soil are no doubt the zamindars of the village. The plaintiff alleged that he had been for many years in actual possession and occupation of the land in suit, having erected a thatched hut thereon and possessing the rest of the land, not actually covered by the suit, as a courtyard appertaining to the fame. He further alleged that, during his absence from the village, the defendants, without any sort of right or title, had demolished the hut which belonged to him and taken possession of the land and of the tree, erecting a shed of their own on some portion of the land. The defendants' reply was that the plaintiff had never been in p