(1.) DEFENDANT 1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for partition. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties. plaintiff-2 claims one-third share and plaintiff-1 one-sixth The defence case is that there was a previous partition by metes and bounds. The Courts below concurrently negatived the defence plea and decreed the suit for partition.
(2.) MR. Pal contended that the learned lower appellate court misconstrued the documentary evidence on record, namely, Exs. C/2 and C/1. I have gone through those documents carefully and am not inclined to agree with MR. B.K. Pal that these documents were misconstrued. None of these documents either individually or taking together would establish that there was a previous partition by metes and bounds.