1. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed on the ground that the widow of his brothers son was not made a party in the suit. His appeal before the lower appellate court was also dismissed on the same ground. The present appellants are the heirs of the plaintiff, since dead.

2. One Hari Mahto had three sons, namely, Dilo Mahto (plaintiff), Khudu Mahto and Tulsi Mahto. The defendant-respondents are the sons of Khudu Mahto who is dead. Tulshi Mahto died leaving behind a son Nanku Mahto in 1356 fasli. Nanku Mahto also died sometimes in the year 1960 leaving behind his widow named Rukmini Devi. According to the plaintiff the three sons of Hari Mahto separated in mess and business long time back but jointly cultivated their lands until 4-4-1959 when there was an amicable partition by metes and bounds of the ancestral properties between the plaintiff, the defendants and Nanku Mahto. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of Nanku Mahto in 1960 he had inherited the share of Nanku Mahto as his sole surviving legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to the exclusion of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit lands hence the s