A. K. Rath, J. - (1.) Plaintiff No.3 is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for partition.
(2.) The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties. The case of the plaintiffs is that Narayan was the common ancestor of the parties. Narayan died leaving behind him six sons, Kanhei, Laxman, Rama, Dana, Nata and Nila. Plaintiffs are the sons of Kalia and Dutia. Kalia and Dutia are the sons of Kanhei. Eka is the son of Rama. Defendant is the son of Eka. After the death of Narayan, his sons were in possession of the suit land jointly. Kanhei survived to all his other brothers, who died before him and as such, their interest over the suit land devolved on him. After death of Kanhei, the plaintiffs and the defendant are in possession of the suit land. The suit land has been recorded jointly in the 4th settlement. The same had not been partitioned between the parties.
(3.) Defendant filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendant is that Narayan was the common ancestor of the parties. After his death, the suit land was recorded jointly in the names of six brothers in the 2nd settlement. Kanhei and Laxman separated. Their share of land was recorded in Khata No.10 during 3rd settlement in the name of Kalia the son of Kanhei. The rest of the lands were recorded in the name of Nata under Khata No.11 in 3rd settlement.;