AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The only arguable question in this second appeal is whether the defendants Nos. 3 to 7 are legally entitled, to be reimbursed by the plaintiff the
costs of improvements effected by them on the lands in their possession. But even this question would arise only if the defendants have proved that
they did effect such improvements and if they also proved satisfactorily the value thereof.
As we understand the judgment of the learned District Judge, he finds that the defendants Nos. 3 to 7 have not proved that they have done
anything more than spending a small sum every year in the usual manuring and levelling of the lands for the purpose of husbandman like cultivation
thereof and that they have not proved what they have, spent even on such usual acts.
There is, therefore, no foundation for the second appeal which is dismissed with costs.