JUDGMENT

1. The parties in the suit, out of which this second appeal arises, are Jains belonging to Amritsar. The property in dispute is a house and a half share in a shop, which belonged to one Kanshi Ram and after his death came into the possession of his widow, Mt. Uttam Devi. She adopted a boy, named Amin Chand, son of Gopi Mal, and executed a deed of adoption, Ex. D 5, dated the 29th. April, 1907, adopting him as a son to her husband and herself. She died in May 1907, and shortly before her death she executed a will, Ex. D 6, dated the 10th of May, 1907, by which she appointed Gopi Mal, father of Amin Chand, to act as a guardian of his person and property in her place. The boy then remained under the care of his natural father but died as a minor in November, 1913, after having been ill for a considerable period. The property was at that time in the possession of Gopi Mal in his capacity as a guardian of the deceased minor. Certain persons, including Ishar Das, plaintiff in the present case, claimed shares in the property as collaterals of Kanshi Ram, deceased. This matter was referred to arbitration by both the parties and the arbitrators gave an award treating Ishar Das, etc., as collaterals and giving them certain specified shares. This award was not, however, accepted, for one reason or other, by the parties, and was not acted upon. On the 19th December, 1913, the plaintiff Ishar Das brought the present suit against Gopi Mal and others for possession of one fourth share of the property left by Kanshi Ram. Some of the defendants were collaterals other than the plaintiff, who were made pro forma defendants, because they did not join him in bringing the suit. Gopi Mal, the contesting defendant, denied the alleged relationship between the plaintiff and Kanshi Ram and further pleaded that the widow was the sole owner and had passed a complete title to Amin Chand and that he was now entitled to succeed Amin Chand as his heir. He also pleaded that he had spent Rs. 3.261-0-0 on the minor and this amount was a charge on the property and no one-could get any part of the property without paying the above sum. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was a reversioner of Kanshi Ram, but he was not entitled to succeed to the property left by Amin-Chand, because the property would now pass on to the natural heirs of the latter. It, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's suit who appealed against this decision. The learned District Judge agreed with the trial Court in holding that the plaintiff was a collateral of Kanshi Ram and also-came to the conclusion that the collaterals of Kanshi Ram were entitled to succeed to-the property and not the natural heirs of Amin Chand. It remanded the case, therefore, under Order 46, Rule 25, Civil Procedure Code, for a decision on issues-Nos. 5 and 6, which ran as follows and had not been decided by the Court of first instance.

2. 5. What is plaintiff's share in the properties in question? On plaintiff. 6. Whether (Gopi Mal and Kheman Mal) defendants Nos. 1 and 2 spent any monies for Mt, Uttam Devi or Amin Chand, and if so whether these create a first lien on the property in dispute? On defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The report of the learned Subordinate Judge on these issues was made on 6ih April, 1920, to the effect that the share of the plaintiff amounted to one-fourth according to the pedigree table, Exhibit P1 relied on by him, and that Gopi Mal was nob entitled to the money claimed by him on account of expenses incurred, as such expenses were not a charge on the property. The learned District Judge has agreed with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge and has accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and passed a decree as prayed for in the plaint. Defendant Gopi Mal and Kheman Mal have come up to this Court in second appeal and we have heard Mr. Moti Sagar on behalf of the appellants, whose arguments may be divided in the following lour heads:

3. 1. It is not proved that the plaintiff was a collateral of