Judgement Appeal (No. 66 of 1927) by special leave from a decree of the High Court (February 22, 1926) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur. The appellants brought a suit in 1904 against numerous defendants claiming a declaration that the defendants had no proprietary right in twenty plots of abadi land of the zamindari which were in their occupation. There were 527 plots of that nature in all. The High Court, reversing the trial judge, dismissed the suit, the learned judges being of opinion that having regard to proceedings which took place between 1856 and 1860, and continuous occupation since without paying rent, the defendants had acquired title by adverse possession. Law. Rep. 57 Ind. App. 186 ( 1929- 1930) Zahid Husain V. Mohammad Ismael (No. 2) 45 An application by the plaintiffs to the High Court for a certificate that the case was fit for appeal to the Privy Council under s. 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was rejected. The plaintiffs thereupon applied to the Judicial Committee for special leave to appeal, stating in their petition that their title to the whole 527 plots, which far exceeded Rs. 10,000 in value, was indirectly involved. On July 30, 1923, at the hearing of the petition, upon which the respondents did not appear, special leave was granted, upon the terms that the appellants should pay the respondents costs of the appeal between solicitor and client in any event. The respondents by the first reason in their printed case for upholding the decree contended that special leave should not have been granted, as there was no proof that the appeal directly or indirectly affected property valued at more than Rs.5100. 1930. March 10, 11, 13. De Gruyther K.C. and Wallach for the appellants. Abdul Majid for the respondents. The appellants contended that they had a prima facie title under India Ram v. Bande Ali Khan (( 1911) I. L. R. 33 A. 757.), and that the alleged adverse possession did not affect the plots in suit. March 13. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD BLANESBURGH. Abdul Majid for the respondents. The appellants contended that they had a prima facie title under India Ram v. Bande Ali Khan (( 1911) I. L. R. 33 A. 757.), and that the alleged adverse possession did not affect the plots in suit. March 13. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD BLANESBURGH. In this case, on July 23, 1923, as the result of an ex parte application by the appellants, their Lordships humbly advised His Majesty that special leave should be granted to the applicants to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decree which had been made against them by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on February 22, 1916. The leave was so advised upon special terms as to the costs of the respondents, who are a very large body of holders of small properties in the abadi of the zamindari belonging to the appellants. The application was made by the appellants upon the ground that the decree against which they desired to appeal not only directly affected the properties claimed by the respondents, which did not themselves exceed in aggregate value the sum of Rs.5100, but that it indirectly affected the title of the appellants to other properties in the abadi, the aggregate value of which was far in excess of Rs. 10,000. An application for leave to appeal had on similar grounds been unsuccessfully made by the appellants to the High Court, but their Lordships make no reflection adverse to the appellants upon the terms in which their further application for special leave to appeal was made to the Board. The respondents, however, have, in their printed case, stated as their first reason for affirming the decree that special leave to appeal should not have been granted because, as they say, there is no proof that the order appealed against indirectly affected the appellants title to any property at all. As the result of the full investigation into all the facts and circumstances of an extremely complicated case which, with the assistance of counsel, their Lordships have now been able to make, they are quite satisfied that no plots of land in the abadi of the appellants zamindari other than those claimed by the respondents are in fact affected by the decision appealed against. Indeed there is, in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, whose decree in their favour, of September 27, 1913, the appellants seek to have restored by this appeal, a statement which proves that the other plots in the abadi to which the appellants have referred, stand, with regard to the zamindars, in a position quite different from those of the respondents. In these circumstances this objection taken to the competence of the appeal, now that it is shown to be Law. Rep. 57 Ind. App. 186 ( 1929- 1930) Zahid Husain V. Mohammad Ismael (No. 2) 46 well founded, becomes of compelling importance. The respond ents, a veritable crowd of people of slender means, have had their titles to their properties upheld by the decree of their own High Court. Only in the most exceptional circumstances would it be right to require them further to defend their title before the Board. No provision for their costs, however adequate, can be their sufficient protection against the risk involved. It appears, accordingly, to their Lordships, that this appeal against them should not proceed further. Nor, as the objection to its competence is put in the forefront of their case, does it appear to the Board to be necessary that the respondents should be required by petition to apply that the Order in Council giving the special leave should be rescinded. In the circumstances it will suffice if their Lordships advise His Majesty, as they will humbly do, that on the facts as now disclosed this appeal should not be further entertained. In fulfilment of the offer made by the appellants when they obtained special leave to appeal they must now provide for the respondents costs as between solicitor and client, and the order as to costs will be to that effect.