JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - The facts of this case are a little complicated and will have to be stated at some length in order to appreciate the points that arise for decision in second appeal. The plaintiffs who were minors, instituted the suit out' of which j this appeal has arisen, on 22nd December 1924, for ejectment of defendants 1 to 4. Their case was that they were occupancy f tenants of the lands in suit and the defendants 1 to 4, who were cosharers in the village, but who were not the entire body of cosharers, ejected them from the lands in suit on 25th June 1924.

2. The suit was met by a number of objections. The first Court dismissed the suit and the second Court affirmed the decision. The ground on which the lower appellate Court affirmed the decree of the first Court was that a certain order or supposed order of the Assistant Collector made in pursuance of an application of the plaintiff's mother, defendant 5, was a bar to the maintenance of the suit. We shall have occasion to state the facts relating to that application at length later on.

3. In this Court it is contended for the plaintiffs-appellants that the learned Judge of the Court below was wrong in his opinion that the