Judgement

Consolidated Appeal (No. 55 of 1925) from three decrees of the High Court (April 24, 1923) reversing three decrees of the Additional District Judge of Faridpur (May 26, 1919) which reversed three decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur.

The three suits giving rise to the consolidated appeal were brought by the appellants against the principal respondents, and claimed that under putnis given to them, or their predecessors, about 1868 they were entitled to possession of lands which the defendants had received upon a partition under the Estates Partition Act, 1897.

The substantial question in the appeal was whether s. 99 of the above Act was applicable.

The District Judge (reversing the trial judge) held that the above section applied and made decrees in the plaintiffs favour.

On appeal to the High Court the learned judges (Chatterjea and Graham JJ.) considered that the findings of the District Judge did not preclude them in second appeal from holding that the estate was not held in common within the meaning of s. 99. In so holding they followed Nagendra Mohan Roy v. Pyari Mohan Saha. (I. L. R. 43 C. 103.)

The view of the learned judges is more fully stated in the judgm