JUDGMENT 1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the Plaintiffs sue for a declaration of their title to and recovery of possession of certain lands, on the ground that they had been reformed on their original site within the village of the Plaintiffs' Ekandal. The Defendants claimed a portion of the lands as their lakhiraj in that mouzah and another portion as belonging to a talook owned and possessed by them. 2. Both the Courts below have found that the lands in question were, in fact, reformed on their original site in the village of the Plaintiffs and have decided in favour of the Plaintiffs upon the whole case. 3. A number of grounds have been urged in second appeal, of which we need only notice the following, which alone have been pressed before us. 4. It has been urged with regard to a portion of the lands claimed by the Defendants as lakhiraj that the burden of proving that they were mal lands lay upon the Plaintiffs. We think that there is no ground for our interfering in respect of this objection. The cases referred to in support of that proposition are, as the Subordinate Judge shows in his judgment, not applicable to a case of the present kind. There is, moreover, evidence as the Subordinate Judge has shown which negatives the supposition that any lakhiraj land at all existed in the Plaintiffs' mouzah. The learned Subordinate Judge points out that the thak map of the village shows no such lakhiraj lands. It has been objected on behalf of the Appellants that the thak map can be no evidence in a matter of this kind and reference has been made in support of that contention to the case of Jarao Kumari v. Lalon Moni I. L. R. 18 Cal. 224 (P.C.) (1890). That case is no authority for the proposition which it is now sought to advance. It was held that in the circumstances of that case an entry in the thakbust map showing certain lands as debutter lands was of no value because the Amin had no authority to decide what lands were debutter, and that the statements on which the entry was made were probably given by the agents of one of the parties, no one being present to question the accuracy of them. The case is quite different here. The case is quite different here. As the Subordinate Judge points out, at the time that the thak map was made in the present case, it was necessary to show in such maps such lakhiraj lands as might be claimed. There is another objection, namely, that the partition of the share which the Plaintiffs claimed in their village Ekandal has not been properly proved in the case, inasmuch as the batwara papers have not been produced. Both the Courts below have held that there was ample documentary evidence upon the record to establish the partition ; and we are not prepared to say that they were wrong in law in holding this in the absence of the actual partition papers themselves. 5. Finally an objection has been urged that a certain co-sharer of the Plaintiffs was not made a party to the suit. We do not find that this objection is raised in the memorandum of second appeal. An issue was fixed by the Court of first instance whether the Plaintiffs were proprietors of the entire disputed lands, and upon the evidence that issue was decided in favour of the Plaintiffs. That was a mere question of fact and we have no reason to suppose, on the papers before us, that there was any defect of parties in the suit. The appeal is dismissed with costs.