JUDGMENT : 1. The facts of this appeal are given in my remand order dated 8th May 1913, but in order to make the present judgment intelligible, some of the facts have to be recapitulated. It appears that the plaintiff-appellant is one of the zamindars of the village Tirwa. He owns 18-biswa share while three other persons have 2 biswa share in the village. He sued in the Court of the Munsif of Muhaban for ejectment of certain persons from abadi plot 21219 by demolition of certain structures said to have been wrongfully made by them. The principal defendants against whom the suit was brought were Holasi and his four sons. The other defendants, namely, Hira Singh, Sundar and Basanta were pro forma defendants who were zamindars of the village and declined to join the plaintiff in the suit. It was stated in the plaint that plot 21219 belonged to the plaintiff and the pro forma defendants and that it was situate in the abadi and was waste ground on which Holasi and his sons had encroached in 1909 by building a compound and two rooms without any right. The plaintiff-appellant claimed to eject Holasi and his sons and to have the new structures demolished under the terms of the wajibularz and the law in force in these provinces. The claim was resisted by Holasi and his sons who denied the allegations in the plaint and stated that there was an old building on the plot in suit which had fallen down and on the foundations of which the new structures had been erected. They further pleaded that they had been in possession for the last 33 years. They denied the right of the plaintiff to eject them or to get the structures demolished. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim and the learned Judge on appeal affirmed the decree of the first Court. The plaintiff in second appeal to this Court contended that proper issues had not been framed in the case and that the judgments given by the Courts below were inconclusive. 2. It was said that the plaintiff had Sued Holasi and his sons describing them as mere trespassers. The plaintiff was admittedly one of the zamindars of the village with the largest share in it. He was the proprietor of the site in the abadi whether covered by houses or not. 2. It was said that the plaintiff had Sued Holasi and his sons describing them as mere trespassers. The plaintiff was admittedly one of the zamindars of the village with the largest share in it. He was the proprietor of the site in the abadi whether covered by houses or not. The plaintiff's possession over the plot in suit would be presumed unless some act was shown to have disturbed it. The contesting defendants had not in their written statement specified the rights under which they obtained possession of the plot in suit. They never set up in the pleadings adverse possession over it. 3. The finding of the learned Munsif that the structures complained of were built on the foundations of old ones not state the age of those foundations or the length and nature of possession of the defendants over the plot in suit. The finding of the Munsif that there was a village custom under which tenants could build on their enclosures or jotes was based on an inspection note and was not warranted by any evidence on the record. For the respondents, the contention was that throughout the case it was understood that the plaintiff treated them as tenants and that the plot in suit was their jote. Under the terms of the wajibularz, the tenants were not expressly prohibited from building on their jotes. 4. As the contentions raised by the parties could not be disposed of satisfactorily without getting definite findings on certain points of fact, I framed the following four issues and remitted them for trial under O. 41, R. 25. The issues were:—(1) “What is the status of the contesting defendants in the village? (2) How long and in what capacity have they and their predecessors-in-title been in possession of plot 21219? (3) What was the age of the old building on the foundations of which the new structures are said to have been made? (4) Is there any custom obtaining in the village under which tenants can build on their jotes and enclosures without the permission of the zamindar?”. The lower appellate Court has returnee the findings. On the admission, of the parties the lower Court has found on issue 1, that the contesting defendants were tenants in the village at the time of the filing of the suit. The lower appellate Court has returnee the findings. On the admission, of the parties the lower Court has found on issue 1, that the contesting defendants were tenants in the village at the time of the filing of the suit. On issues 2 and 3 the learned Judge has held that the contesting defendants are in possession of the plot in suit as tenants, but he cannot say how long they have been in possession of it. All that he can say is that they have been in possession for some time before they built the present structures on the foundations of an old building, the age of which he cannot determine. On issue 4 the finding is that there is no custom obtaining in the village under which tenants can build on their jotes or enclosures without the permission of the zamindar. The contesting defendants have taken no objections to the findings of the lower Court. The plaintiff-appellant has taken objections, but only to the finding on issue 2. 5. It is said on his behalf that the finding on issue 2 is vague, ambiguous and incorrect and that there is no legal evidence to show that the contesting defendants were given possession over the plot in suit by the zamindar. It is said, in the absence of any such evidence the learned Judge should have held that the contesting defendants were mere trespassers in respect of the property in dispute. I do not think that the contention of the plaintiff-appellant is correct. There is evidence on the record to the effect that the plot in suit is the jote of the contesting defendants who are tenants. The absence of evidence as to when the contesting defendants or their ancestors or predecessors in-title were let into possession of the plot in suit does not vitiate the finding of the learned Judge that they were in possession as tenants. No attempt was made in cross-examination to show that the statement that the plot in suit was in possession of the contesting defendants as their jote was erroneous. I therefore, disallow the objections of the plaintiff-appellant and affirm the finding of the learned Judge on issue 2, as to the character of possession of the contesting defendants over the plot in suit. 6. I therefore, disallow the objections of the plaintiff-appellant and affirm the finding of the learned Judge on issue 2, as to the character of possession of the contesting defendants over the plot in suit. 6. In view of the facts now ascertained the position of the parties appears to be as follows:—The plaintiff-appellant as zamindar of the village is the proprietor of the abadi site including the land in dispute. The contesting defendants are tenants and are in possession of the disputed land as such. They have built a compound and two rooms on the said land, and parts of the new buildings are on the foundations of an older building, an enclosure wall. The exact age of the old foundations cannot be determined considering the character of the evidence on the record. There is no custom obtaining in the village under which a tenant can erect new buildings within his jote without the permission of the zamindar. Is the plaintiff-appellant then on these facts entitled to eject the contesting defendants and have the new structures demolished? I do not think that the erection of new structures by tenants within their jotes without the permission of the zamindar gives the latter a right to eject them. All that he can claim is to have the new buildings demolished. In the present case, the tenants say that the new buildings are on the foundations of old ones. But all that the evidence shows is that there are foundations of an enclosure wall. There is nothing to show that there had been any residential rooms on the site of the present ones. The plaintiff-appellant pan ask to have the rooms recently built pulled down. His claim therefore succeeds as to the demolition of the two rooms. I decree the plaintiff's claim so far as to direct that the rooms built by the contesting defendants on plot 21219 be demolished by them within three months or in default the said rooms be demolished through the Court Amin, and the costs of demolition will be borne by the contesting defendants. The rest of the claim is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs in all Courts.