defendants challenge that the plaintiff could never be the grantor. And, in the final analysis the plaintiff had given up this plea and has chosen to fall back on Ext.A2, the agreement dated 17.05.1957, (whose construction will occupy this court later in this judgement), and the plaintiff succeeded before the trial court not because it established its cause for the present action in the manner it pleaded but because on the construction of Ext.A2 which is now under challenge. This indicates that the defendants' defence is not bald, but substantial. This in turn would imply that the plaintiff should have gone for a suit for declaration of its title. That it has given up its claim of title and presses into service an argument on specific endowment of the suit properties alternatively, something it has developed midway during this litigious course, may not be adequate to assist it in saving the suit. If it is a case of specific endowment, then it is an acknowledgement of the fact that the parties to Ext.A2 were the owners of the suit property to start with, and if it could not establish a specific endowment of absolute character then the ownership of the parties to Ext.A2 ipso jure would devolve on their descendants and that would save Ext.A3 partition. And with Ext.A3 dated in 1957 starring on its face and casting a cloud on his claim of title to the suit properties for 43 years till the plaintiff laid the suit, the
