S.B. SANYAL, J.

1. Defendants 2 to 6 have preferred this appeal against the JUDGMENT : of reversal.

2. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition. At the time of admission the only question framed was whether while reversing the JUDGMENT : of the trial court the appellate court has wrongly placed the onus on the defendants to prove partition of the suit property and in view of the further fact that a large number of documents and oral evidence which were considered by the trial court have not been considered by the lower appellate court.

3. From paragraph 29 of the trial JUDGMENT : it appears that the trial court considered the evidence of the plaintiffs, namely, P.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 8, 16 and 17 and concluded that they do not seem to know the details of the lands for which the suit for partition has been instituted. The lower appellate court has considered the oral evidence in paragraphs 17 and 18 but there is no reference to the evidence of any of the witness of plaintiffs. To my mind this approach of the appellate court followed from the view he expressed in the JUDGMENT : as here under:–

"Undoubtedly, the presumption is that a Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara