1. We cannot say that there is any legal objection to the finding that the Exhibit I was not satisfactorily proved. The Subordinate Judge referred to Exhibit C as showing that the plaintiff treated the land as the owner and that Exhibit I could not, therefore, be genuine.
2. With regard to the question of limitation, the finding is that there was no time fixed for the execution of the conveyance and that time, therefore, ran from the time when demand was made and defendant refused performance. The Subordinate Judge's view on the question was right.
3. It is next argued that the plaintiff was guilty of undue delay in instituting the suit; but it has not been shown that the delay has in any way prejudiced the defendant. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.