1. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the District Judge did not consider the real question in the case, viz., whether the 2nd defendant having made the conveyance as de facto guardian of the minor, the transaction was for the benefit of the minor. This question was not raised in the 1st defendant's written statement or in the issues or in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court. It is raised for the first time in second appeal. Assuming in these circumstances it is open to the appellant to take this point, there is nothing in the findings of the lower appellate Court which would warrant us in holding that the transaction was for the minor's benefit.
2. As regards improvements the point is taken in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court,but there is nothing to indicate that any claim for improvements was pressed in the lower appellate Court. The District Judge makes no reference to the question.
3. We have looked at the evidence which has been printed (as we are entitled to do under Section 123 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908), and we are not prepared to say the Munsif was wrong in his view that there was no trustworthy evidence on which the value of improvements (if any) could be assessed.
4. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.