JUDGMENT :

S.K. Ray, J. - The Plaintiff in a suit for partition has filed this second appeal from the reversing decision of the lower appellate Court. The Plaintiff and Defendant are the uterine brothers and members of one family as will be seen from the genealogy reproduced herein below:

Ananta Misra (wife) Mukta

Lokanath Baidyanath Udayanath

(Defendant) (Plaintiff) (died-1948)

Mukta's father and grandfather are respectively Harihar Rath and Gopinath Rath. Anata Misra, the father of the parties, died 45 years back and their mother Mukta died about 20 years ago. The Plaintiff filed the suit for partition in respect of "Ka" Schedule property of which "Kha" Schedule property is a part. "Kha" Schedule property was undisputedly the property of Mukta. There was, in fact, a partition 10 the year 1942 amongst the three brothers, namely, the Defendant, Plaintiff and late Udayanath. In evidence thereof a partition deed was registered which has been proved in this case as Ext. 1. The Plaintiff, in this suit, has sought to,reopen that partition on the ground that the said partition had been effected under a mistaken notion of the parties as to the statue of the Defendant m the family. Uda