Tek Chand, J.

1. In order to understand the facts of this case, the following pedigree-table will be helpful:

NAULA

____________________________________|_________________________________________

| | |

Jisukh Khushala Nopa

| | |

_____|_______ Sobha Rura

| | | _________________________

Mohan Pema Purna | | |

|___________ ______________| Jeon Godha Sedhu

| | | | | d. s. p. |

Ramdhran Lalu Sedhla Sheola Onkar= Shankar

| | | |

Sheokaran Mohabata Ludhia= Mst.Darkali |

(defendant No.2) (plaintiff) Mst.Dhakli (widow) |

(widow) (remarried) |

__________________________|

| | |

Isher Kannaya Bakhtawar

(defendants No.1.)

2 Mohabata plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit for joint possession of agricultural land against Isher, Kanhaya and Bakhtawar sons of Shankar, who were collectively designated as defendants No. 1. The plaintiff alleged that he was a co-owner in equal share in the several parcels of suit-land along with defendants No. 1. The plaintiff alleged that 40 years before the last settlement of 1962 Bk. the ancestors of the plaintiff had entrusted their share of th