In a Letters Patent Appeal, the provisions of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the C.P.C. are applicable, and therefore, a cross-objection lies.

SARMA, J.:- This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge dated 8th August, 1974 passed in First Appeal No. 45 of 1965 modifying the decree of the trial court.

2. The plaintiffs brought the suit for declaration of his title to the suit land, for confirmation of possession thereon as well as for partition. The suit land originally appertained to cadestral patta No. 129 which stood in the names of two brothers, namely, Anchal Mea, predecessor of the plaintiff and Latu Mea, predecessor of the defendants. The patta covered an area of 74B. 19k. and 4Ch. The cadestral patta was resurveyed in five pattas during the first resettlement operation. The five resettlement pattas are first R.S. Patta Nos. 165, 179, 180, 181 and 182. These five R. S. Pattas were again resurveyed during the second resettlement operation in nine pattas, namely, second R. S. Patta Nos. 261, 248, 249, 250, 251, 231, 240, 253 and 254. The original pattadars, namely, Anchal Mea and Latu Mea died leaving several heirs, each. Although each of them left several heirs, there is no dispute now that the plaintiff Mosaid Mea who was the son of Anchal Mea came to be the owner of the entire land falling in the share of Anchal Mea by right of inheritance as well as by purchase from other co-sharers. Similarly, although there were various other heirs left by Latu Mea, there is no dispute that present defendants have become the owners of the entire share of Latu Mea by inheritance as well as by purchase from other co-shares.

3. According to the plaintiff his predecessor Anchal Mea had 46B. 4K. 6Ch. of land in Cadestral Patta No. 129 and his brother Latu Mea had only 28B. 14K. 14Ch. of land. Besides 46B. 4K. and 6Ch. of land left by Anchal Mea, the plaintiff claimed in the plaint another 4B. 14K. 3Ch. of land by purchase from some of the heirs of Latu Mea under three sale deeds. Thus the plaintiff claimed 50B. 18K. 19Ch, of land in the disputed pattas by right of inheritance and purchase. As 1B. 14K. 10Ch. and 16G. of land, out of the aforesaid area, was eroded by river, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration of his title to 49B. 3K. 14Ch. and 4G. of land in the disputed pattas and also for confirmation of his possession and partition.

4. The defendants case is that the two brothers, Anchal Mea and Latu Mea were the owners of equal interest in the disputed cadestral patta No. 129. The defendants further case is that by his purchase under 3 sale deeds Exts. 10, 11 and 18 the plaintiff could not acquire any interest over 4B. 14K and 3Ch. of land as the defendants had earlier repurchased this land from Khurshed Ali to whom their predecessor Anju Mea had sold the same.

5. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on a consideration of the same the learned Subordinate Judge decreed in full the plaintiffs suit, i.e. in respect of 49B. 3K. 14Ch. and 4G. of land in the disputed patta. Being aggrieved by the decree of the trial court the defendants filed an appeal before this Court, which was heard and disposed of by a single Judge, as indicated above, by his judgment dated 8-8-74.

6. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned single Judge held that the predecessors of both the parties, namely, Anchal Mea and Latu Mea held equal interest in the cadestral patta i.e. 37B. 9K. 10Ch. of land each. He also found that the plaintiff acquired his interest to an area of another 3B. 10K. by purchase under 3 sale deeds marked Exts. 10, 11 and 18. Thus the learned Judge found that the plaintiff had his interest over an area of 40B. 19K. and 10Ch. of land in the disputed pattas. But as an area of 1B. 14K. 10Ch. and 16G. had been eroded by river out of this area, he decreed the plaintiffs suit in respect of 39B. 4K. 15Ch. and 14G. only.

7. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the appeal the original plaintiff-respondent Mosad Mea having died, his legal represen