BAHARUL ISLAM, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 29 of 1970.

2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of khas possession in respect of the suit land after evicting the defendants therefrom. The following genealogical table will be helpful in appreciating the facts:

According to the plaintiffs they were the agnates (wrongly written as cognates) of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter called the "defendants"). The plaintiffs and defendants common ingkhol was once covered by patta No. 89/330-I. The land was partitioned into two ingkhols covered by two separate pattas Nos. 89/330-I and 89/446-I. The latter fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the former to the share of the defendants. At the time of the partition in Mutation Case No. 144 of 1939, the eastern half of the land covered by Dag No. 574 was not taken into account. So, the plaintiffs later on instituted Misc. Case No. 178 of 1940-41. Chandrahas Sharma, father of defendants 3 and 4 objected to it, but the Settlement Officer decided that the said eastern half of the land covered by the aforesaid Dag N