Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

1. The defendant nos.7 to 13 have filed this First Appeal against the judgment and final decree dated 19.01.1979 passed by the learned 6th Additional Subordinate Judge, Siwan in Partition Suit No.16 of 1951.

2. It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid partition suit for partition of the suit property. The suit was decreed initially by compromise. According to the compromise, Pleader Commissioner was to be appointed for preparing takhta. Pleader Commissioner was appointed and report was submitted by him on 07.06.1957. The parties filed their respective objections to the said Pleader Commissioner’s report. Subsequently, the Pleader Commissioner was directed to submit supplementary report. On 22.04.1959, the Pleader Commissioner filed supplementary report which was confirmed on 18.01.1960. Against the said judgment and final decree, the defendant nos.1 to 5 and 6 filed Civil Appeal No.255 of 1960. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court, Patna on 04.08.1966. While dismissing the appeal, the High Court directed the trial court to prepare a separate takhta of defendant nos.1 to 5 from defendant nos.7 to 13 with respect to khata nos.57 and 58. Pursuant to the said direction, another Pleader Commissioner was appointed. The Pleader Commissioner separated the takhta for defendant nos.1 to 5 and submitted his report on 05.09.1976. Against the said report, the appellants who were defendant nos.7 to 13 filed objection. After considering the said objection, the impugned judgment was passed.

3. The defendant nos.7 to 13, the appellants filed objection mainly contending that the classification made by the Pleader Commissioner was not correct and accordingly, the valuation is also not correct. The other contention of the appellants was that the defendant nos.1 to 5 have received the compensation with regard to portion of plot no.644 which was acquired by the State of Bihar but the said land has been allotted in the takhta of defendant nos.7 to 13. Likewise, the R.S. Plot No.2335 was given in zurpesgi by the defendant nos.1 to 5 which have also been given in the share of defendant nos.7 to 13.

4. It appears that the defendant nos.1 to 5 filed rejoinder to the said objection filed by the defendant nos.7 to 13.

5. The learned counsel, Mrs. Archana Meenakshee appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the trial court has not considered the objections of the appellants. According to the learned counsel, two sale deeds were filed before the trial court to show that the Pleader Commissioner has not correctly valued the suit lands comprised within khata no.57. By the sale deeds, the adjacent plot was sold for Rs.460 per kattha whereas the Pleader Commissioner has valued the suit land at Rs.360 per bigha. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendant nos.1 to 5 have been allotted entire plots comprised within plot no.403, 453, 1237, 2515 and 2706 without giving any part of the said plots to the defendant nos.7 to 13. On these grounds, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned judgment and final decree is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for preparation of fresh takhta.

6. As stated above, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents.

7. In view of the above contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, the only point arises for consideration in this case is as to “whether on the grounds raised by the appellants, the impugned judgment and final decree is liable to be set aside?”

8. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid partition suit claiming half share in the suit property. The said suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendant nos.1 to 5 before the High Court against the final decree was dismissed. The High Court directed that out of the takhta allotted to the defendants, the takhta of defendant nos.1 to 5 may be separated from the takhta of defendant nos.7 to 13. It appears that t