JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in an action for recovery of possession of property, moveable and immovable, which according to the plaintiff respondent belonged at one time to a man named. Sham Lal. The plaintiff alleged that he himself and another man, by name Raghu Nath Sahoy, were equally entitled to take by inheritance the properties left by Sham Lal. In the plaint he farther stated that Raghu Nath had not been heard of for upwards of 12 years and, consequently, could not be made a party to the suit. The Court of First Instance found as a fact that of the properties claimed by the plaintiff the garden did, at no time, form part of the estate of Sham Lal and that there was no evidence to show, as regards the moveables, that any of the defendants was in possession of any portion of them. As regards the kasht land and the dwelling house, the Court of First Instance found that they formed part of the estate of Sham Lal and that the plaintiff was consequently entitled to a decree for a half share thereof. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance, and made a decree in full in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The d