Sia Saran Sinha, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment of affirmance passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in appeal arising out of a suit for partition, pure and simple.

2. Certain facts are undisputed and they are these. One Ramjiwan had two sons, called Dhanai and Thanai. Dhanai had two sons, Nema and Chowa. Thanai had no issue and he died leaving his widow Mostt. Akhaji, who is also dead. The plaintiffs are the descendants of Nema, whereas defendants first party are descendants of Chowa. The other defendants impleaded are purchasers of a portion of the properties sought to be partitioned from the defendants of Chowa.

3. The plaintiffs alleged that although separate possession of the descendants of Nema and Chowa as also Mostt. Akhaji were recorded in the cadestral survey settlement operation, which undisputedly took place some time near about 1912, the properties which once belonged to Ramjiwan and which are undisputedly the lands which are sought to be partitioned, were never partitioned between the parties by metes and bounds. The plaintiffs felt difficulty in cultivation of the lands. They demanded partition which was refused. This led the plaintiffs to institute the instant suit for partition.

4. The suit was contested by some of the members of the defendants first party. The defence set up was that prior to the cadastral survey operation, there was a partition between Dhanai and Thanai, in which partition all the joint family properties were partitioned by metes and bounds. This was followed by another partition between the descendants of Nema and Chowa, this too prior to the cadastral survey operation. In this partition also the properties, which had fallen to the share of Dhanai in the earlier partition, were partitioned by metes and bounds between the two branches and they were coming in possession of the lands that had fallen to their share.

5. The further defence set up was that before cadastral survey operation, there was a re-union between the descendants of Chowa and Mostt. Akhaji, presumably because the latter had no issue and the lands falling to the share of Mostt. Akhaji began to be looked after by the former. Subsequently after the death of Akhaji, the descendants of Chowa came in exclusive possession of all the lands of Mostt. Akhaji to the entire exclusion of the plaintiffs. They got their names mutated with respect to those lands of Mostt. Akhaji and dealt with some of them.

6. Among other issues, one of the issues framed was regarding the suit being barred by limitation. Paragraph 9 of the judgment of the trial Court shows that this issue of limitation was not pressed at the time of hearing. On a consideration of the evidence adduced, the trial Court found that there was separation between Dhanai and Thanai and subsequently between the descendants of Nema and Chowa. The trial Court also found that there was re-union between Mostt. Akhaji, and the descendants of Chowa and the descendants of Chowa were coming in exclusive possession of the lands that had fallen to the share of Mostt. Akhaji, since after her death which took place long back. On these findings, amongst others, the trial Court dismissed the suit.

7. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court found that there was partition by metes and bounds of the joint family properties between Dhanai and Thanai and subsequently another partition by metes and bounds between the descendants of Nema and Chowa and that both these two partitions took place prior to the cadastral survey operation in 1912.

8. According to the lower appellate Court there had been re-union between the descendants of Chowa and Thanai, as there can be no re-union in law between Mostt. Akhaji and Ghowa. The further finding of the lower appellate Court was that the descendants of Chowa remained in exclusive possession of the properties left by Mostt. Akhanji, who, as further found by it, died before 1927 and they dealt with th