JUDGMENT

Agarwala, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for profits brought in the Revenue Court in respect of an eight annas share in zamindari property in village Hasanganj for the years 1348 to 1351 F.

2. The following pedigree will be of help in understanding the facts of the case:-

                         Mohan  Singh_________________________________________________________________/                                                          /Ram Singh                                    Ram Baksh Singh  /                                                |Ram Adhin Singh                                    |      Plff 4.                                      |                                                   |_________________________________________________________________ Ram             Jit Bahadur          Pirthiraj           RamNarain              Singh,              Singh           Bharosey,Defdt. 1.         Defdt. 2.            Defdt. 3.        Detdt. 4.

3. The Plaintiffs' case was that Mohan Singh, the ancestor of Ram Adhin Singh, Plaintiff No. 4, and of the Defendants was the owner of the proprietary rights, in village Hasanganj in dispute and certain other properties. He executed a will (Ex. 1) on the 25th October, 1951, in respect of this property and gave to Ram Singh and Ram Adhin Singh an eight annas share in the property and the remaining eight annas share to the branch of his other son, Ram Baksh Singh. Ram Singh, Ram Adhin Singh and the sons of the latter filed a suit against Ram Baksh Singh, his sons Ram Narain Singh, Jit Bahadur Singh, Pirthiraj Singh, Ram Bharosey Singh and the son of Ram Narain Singh, on the 20th May, 1932, for partition of the family property including the proprietary rights in village Hasanganj. In this suit the Plaintiffs alleged that the proprietary rights in village Hasanganj were owned by Mohan Singh who by his will had bequeathed a half share to Ram Singh and Ram Adhin Singh, Plaintiffs, and the remaining half to Ram Baksh Singh and his sons, the Defendants. Some other property which had been acquired (sic)ion the name of Ram Baksh Singh was also included in the suit and in respect of that property the Plaintiffs' case was that it was purchased by Mohan Singh or by Ram Baksh Singh from joint family funds and, therefore, partook of the character of joint family property. This suit was resisted by the Defendants. It was admitted by them (and this is important to remember that the proprietary rights in village Hasanganj were indeed owned by Mohan Singh and that he had made a will in respect of them in favour of Ram Singh and Ram Baksh Singh as alleged by the Plaintiffs but they denied the Plaintiffs' right to a half share in those items of the other properties in suit which had been acquired in the name of Ram Baksh Singh. Their case was that Ram Baksh Singh was the sole owner of these items of the property as he had acquired them with his own separate funds. A list of the property sought to be partitioned was attached to the plaint and in this list, the proprietary rights in Hasonganj village were shown at No. 4. While admitting the Plaintiffs' case with regard to the Hasanganj property in the body of the written statement, the Defendants also made out a list of the properties in dispute purporting to be in the same order as the list attached to the plaint and against each of the items in the lists, they noted whether the particular property belonged to the joint family or to Ram Baksh Singh alone. By mistake in this list the property at No. 14 though shown as Hasanganj was shown as not the proprietary rights of village Hasanganj but some other rights and the area was given as 3 bighas 16 biswas only. This description was probably taken from the area in respect of the immediately proceeding property of village Dhaura which was shown at No. 13 having an area of 3 bighas as is proved from the fact that in the remarks column against property No. 14, it was mentioned that th