Heard Mr. J. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of preface, before going into the dispute raised in this appeal in detail, it will be appropriate to make a passing reference to the dispute. One Sukdhan Kachari was the owner of 63 Bigha 3 Katha 18 Lecha of land in various Dags in village Raumari Part-I under Dudhnoi Circle. Out of this land, 6 Bigha in Dag No. 18 was taken by the Government for construction of “Dong” (embankment). Sukdhan Kachari had left behind two sons, namely, (i) Dhwajendra Kachari and (ii) Nareswar Kachari. Both of them are also no more. The dispute, in the present case, relates to partition of properties left behind by Sukdhan Kachari. At the time of institution of the suit, however, Nareswar Kachari, the younger brother, was alive.

3. After some hearing of the Second Appeal had taken place, learned counsel for the parties had submitted that having regard to the nature of the dispute, they would explore the possibility of arriving at an amicable settlement of the dispute and that they would elicit response from their respective clients in this regard. Subsequentl