JUDGMENT

1. Two brothers, Hardeo Prasad and Damodar Prasad, brought a suit for profits. They appeared as joint plaintiffs and jointly claimed the profits due on the entire share of which they were the joint owners. The First Court dismissed the suit. For some reason, with which we are not now concerned, Damodar Prasad preferred to submit to this decree. Hardeo Prasad appealed against the whole decree and impleaded Damodar Prasad as a respondent, on the ground that he had declined to join in the appeal. The District Judge reversed the finding of the Trial Court on the merits. The conclusion arrived at in the judgment obviously is that the suit of Hardeo Prasad and Damodar Prasad ought to have been decreed, and the operative portion of the judgment directs that the decree of the Trial Court be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the claim be decreed. We think there can be no doubt the District Judge intended to give a decree to Hardeo Prasad and Damodar Prasad for the amount in question. By some error in the office, when the decree was drawn up, it was so drafted as to appear on the face of it a decree in favour of Hardeo Prasad alone, and, by a further oversight, the name of Damodar Pras