JUDGMENT

Pramada Charan Banerji, J. - The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff appellant in the Revenue Court for her recorded share of profits for the years 1320, 1321 and 1322 Fasli. Property comprising 7 biswas and odd belonged to one Rahim-un-nissa Bibi. She had three sons, two of whom pre. deceased her. The plaintiff is the daughter of one of the pre. deceased sons. The defendant is the son of a third son who survived her. In the revenue papers the name of the plaintiff was entered in respect of a 3 biswas and odd share, i.e., one half of the 7 biswas and odd which belonged to Rahim-un-nissa. The plaintiff applied for partition of her recorded share in the Revenue Court. Her application was resisted by the defendant, who alleged that she owned no share in the property, her father having predeceased Rahim-un-nissa. He was referred by the ' Revenue Court to the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act. Thereupon he brought a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the present plaintiff had no interest in the property in question. This suit was tried by the Civil Court, and it was finally decided that what Rahim-un-nissa had done was this. She made a waqf of one half of the property and appointed the plaintiff and the defendant trustees of this waqf; as regards the other half the plaintiff was to get one-third, the defendant one-third and the sons of the second predeceased son were to get a third share; but the names of the plaintiff and the defendant only were to be recorded in the revenue papers in regard to this portion of the property, namely, one half of the 7 biswas and odd. The plaintiff's name thus was recorded in regard to 3 biswas and odd, that is to say, one half of the 3 biswas and odd which became waqf property and one half of the remaining 3 biswas and odd, total 3 biswas and odd. It was in respect of this 3 biswas and odd that the plaintiff claimed profits. During the years in question her name was recorded in regard to the 3 biswas and odd, and at the time when she instituted her suit her name was similarly recorded. The plaint clearly shows that she claimed profits for the whole of 3 biswas and odd, and this, as we have said above, includes the waqf property as well as the remainder of the property, in regard to both of which her name was recorded in respect of one-half. The court of first) instance granted a decree to her for a sixth share. This was clearly erroneous, because in the civil suit, to which we have referred, what the court held was that in her own right she was entitled to one-sixth of the 7 biswas and odd, that is to say, to one-third of 3 biswas and odd. But it came to no decision and it passed no decree in respect of the 3 biswas and odd which was waqf property, but it stated in its judgment that she was to have a half share in the waqf as one of the two trustees of the waqf. The lower appellate court was of opinion that as the name of the plaintiff was during the years in question and at the time of the institution of the suit recorded in respect of 3 biswas and odd, she was entitled to a decree for the whole of her claim and for this view it relied upon the decision of the Pull Bench of the whole court in the case of Durga Prasad v. Hazari Singh (1911) All. 799. A second appeal was preferred to this Court and the learned Judge of this Court who heard the appeal reversed the decree of the lower appellate court and restored that of the court of first instance. The learned Judge relied on the fact that since the institution of the suit the Revenue Court had caused the entry of the name of the plaintiff to be amended and had entered her name in regard to one-sixth of 3 biswas odd. It is manifest, having regard to the decision of the Civil Court, to which we have referred above, that this entry was clearly wrong. What the Civil Court held was that the plaintiff was entitled in her own right to one-sixth of the whole of the 7