Sir Walter Phillimore:- Their Lordships approach this case with grave dissatisfaction. The suit was begun as long age as 1892 : in the course of the litigation it has come before six Subordinate Judges, and has been four times to the High Court. The case has given occasion to an acute division of judicial opinion : and lastly the matter now in controversy could, by the exercise of a little care and precision of statement, have been raised and decided at a very early stage, or it may be that the controversy would never have arisen at all. The original plaintiff, who was the predecessor-in-title of the present appellants, instituted this suit for partition of certain brahmattar lakheraj, or revenue-free lands, being lands held along with zemindari No. 77, in a village commonly called Kalipur, in Bengal. This zemindari had been by virtue of proceedings begun in 1851 partitioned by the Collector into five new estates, numbered 5253, 5254, 5406, 5407, and a residual 77. Of these No. 5253 belonged to the plaintiff, and now belongs to the present appellants, as a one-third share of the old zemindari. No. 5254 belongs to defendant No. 1 the present first respondent as his one-third share, and the other estates being lesser shares belong to other defendants who are not taking part in this appeal. Originally partition was made of the whole of the lands held in common, both revenue paying and revenue free. But objection was taken that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities to partition revenue-free lands, and the order for partition was accordingly corrected by directing the exclusion of the revenue-free lands. It is these latter lands of which, as has been said, partition is sought in the present suit. Defendant No. 1 opposed the application for partition. He raised several defences, of which the only ones that need be noticed were that the plaint was too vague and did not properly specify the boundaries of the lands sought to be partitioned (a very prophetic objection), and that he had a separate right and possession in respect of several portions of the lands mentioned in Schedule No. 1 to the plaint. These defences were overruled, and partition was directed by the first Subordinate Judge before whom the case came whom it is convenient to call Judge No. 1. These defences were overruled, and partition was directed by the first Subordinate Judge before whom the case came whom it is convenient to call Judge No. 1. Defendant No. 1 appealed to the High Court; his appeal was rejected, and the partition proceeded. When the matter came before the Commissioners who were directed to make the partition, and the parties attended to point out the several lands, the controversy which is the subject of the present appeal broke out. The plaintiff had expressed himself in his plaint as seeking partition of chucks halka or areas of land numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 on a certain map, which he annexed to and made part of his plaint. On the map are shown six chucks, five of considerable size and one smaller. The five are further shown as being sub-divided. The plaintiff said that he had sought for and obtained partition of the whole of these six chucks. Defendant No. 1 said that the plaint and the decree only related to certain residual portions of the five larger chucks (there being no dispute about the smaller one which was No. 2), and that these residual portions were the Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the plaint and decree. The Commissioners thereupon reported the matter to the Court, and Subordinate Judge No. 2 made an order that they should make two maps with two sets of measurements, one according to the contention of the plaintiff, the other according to the contention of defendant No. 1. The Commissioners then made a second report, dealing with a variety of matters of detail, and also with the question now in controversy. They expressed their opinion in favour of the plaintiff. The case then came before Subordinate Judge No. 3. He went very fully into the whole matter, took the opposite view, and decided in favour of defendant No. 1, ordering the partition to be limited to chuck No. 2 and the residues of the other chucks. He came to this conclusion upon the construction of the plaint and the decree, putting aside all other matters as extraneous. Plaintiff appealed from this order to the High Court; but his appeal was dismissed, upon the ground that the order was interlocutory only and could not prejudice his contention when the proper time came for raising it. He came to this conclusion upon the construction of the plaint and the decree, putting aside all other matters as extraneous. Plaintiff appealed from this order to the High Court; but his appeal was dismissed, upon the ground that the order was interlocutory only and could not prejudice his contention when the proper time came for raising it. It is to be regretted that the High Court took this view of the order. It might well have been treated as determining the right, and the point might then (in the year 1905) have been decided and settled. However it was left open. [The rest of the judgment is not material to our report. It depends purely on a question of the construction of the plaint and the decree in the suit.] Appeal dismissed.