( 1 ) THIS appeal is against an order granting an application for review in a partition suit after the judgment had been delivered and preliminary decree had been, made on the 27th September, 1955. The application for review was made on the 13th October, 1955. The ground urged was that the applicants, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit, had discovered an entry in a birth register showing the birth of a son of Nishikanta Purkait on the 1st of August, 1924 and that this was new and important evidence which was not, after exercise of due diligence, within their knowledge and, therefore, could not be produced by them at the time when the judgment was passed.

( 2 ) ONE of the main questions in the partition suit was whether on the 24th March, 1952, when Saralabala executed a deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff as guardian of Kaniala Kanta Purkait, described in the deed as her minor son, Kamala Kanta was really a minor. It appears that thereafter on the 7th May, 1952, Kamala Kanta himself executed a deed of sale in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. If Kamala Kanta was really a major on the 24th March, 1952, his interest did not pass by the sale by his mother S