1. Both Courts have found that the land in dispute is the private property of the plaintiff and that finding must be accepted in second appeal.
2. We do not think Section 156, Madras Act V of 1884, applies. The cases contemplated in that section are suits for compensation and for damages, and the principle is to allow public bodies time for tender of amends to the parties so as to avoid litigation--see Chunder Sikhur Bundopadya v. Obhoy Churn Bagchi I.L.R. 6 Cal. 8 followed in Syed Ameer Sahib v. Venhatarama see ante, p. 297, Price v. Khilut chandra Ghose 5 Beng. L.R. App. 50 Sorabji Nassar-vanji v. The Justices of the Peace for the City of Bombay 12 Bom. H.C.R. 250 and Joharmal v. The Muncipality of Ahmednagar I.L.R. 6 Bom. 580.
3. This principle cannot apply when the object of the suit is to obtain a declaration of title to immoveable property and for an injunction to restrain interference with immoveable property. No question as to misdescription or defect of parties was taken in the Courts below, and the point does not affect the merits of the case. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.