(1.) Is the admission in the plaint of a suit, permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to sue afresh of any effect, in the suit instituted afterwards, in pursuance of the liberty so given? That is the principal point raised upon this appeal by the plaintiff from an appellate judgment and decree of affirmance
(2.) The stance the plaintiff takes is: Plot No 208, admeasuring, 84 acres, under Khatian no 208, of mouja Bara, within the jurisdiction of Nalhati police-station, in the district of Birbhum, appertains to a Jama of Rs. 16-13as. 10 pies, under the landlord Maharaj Bahadur Singh. As the result of a partition amongst the co-sharers, it falls to the exclusive share of Hi at Sk. Seized of the plot so, Ijjat Sk. executes a heba-bil-ewaj, exhibit 1, for just that in favour of his nephew Esvan Sk. The date of a document as this is Baisakh 3, 1344 B. S., corresponding to April 16, 1937. Ever since, Esban Sk has been in possession thereof; and, after his death his son, Seraj, the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises.
(3.) The stance the defendants take is: Their predecessor in interest, one Ekram Hossain, took settlement of the land in controversy from the landlord Debaprasanna Mukherji in whose khas possession it then was So he did on payment of Nazar of Rs 160 and at a iama of Rs. 6, for which he was granted a receipt, exhibit A, on Jaistha 29, 1350 B. S., corresponding to a date in mid-June 1943.