1. The Subordinate Judge was in error in holding that Exhibits A to D were inadmissible in evidence against the defendants. It is true they are not conclusive, since the defendants were not parties to them, but they are relevant evidence as tending to show that the plaintiff's ancestors had dealt with the site as their own for a long term of years.
2. The Subordinate Judge has thus decided the case upon the oral evidence alone, the defendants not having, on their part, any title-deeds, and he has found a title in the defendants, acquired by adverse possession, as to which no issue was framed.
3. We must ask the Subordinate Judge to re-try the first issue, taking into consideration the documents A to D, and return a revised finding thereon with reference to these observations.
4. Finding is to be returned within one month from the reopening of the Court after the recess, and seven days, after the posting of the finding in this Court, will be allowed for filing objections.
5. [In compliance with the above order, the Subordinate Judge submitted his revised finding on the first issue, which was in favour of the plaintiff.
6. The second appeal having come on for final hearing, their Lordships accepted the above finding and reversed the decree of Subordinate Judge and restored that of the District Munsif.]