Lord Tomlin :- This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit against a decree dated 9th July 1925 of the High Court of Judicature at Port William in Bengal. The decree of the High Court affirmed the decree dated 8th March 1923 of the District Judge of Barisal, reversing (except in one minor respect) a decree dated 22nd September 1921 of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal. As a result of the decisions of the District Judge and the High Court the plaintiff holds a decree for the recovery of possession from the defendants of certain alluvial lands in mauza Chur Daiya, which is part of the plaintiff's zamindary. By this appeal the defendants seak to have this decree reversed and to have the plaintiff's suit dismissed. The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection to the appeal based upon the allegation that the value of the subject-matter of the suit or of the appeal was less than Rs. 10,000, but their Lordships are of opinion that this objection was not well-founded, and that the appeal must be dealt with on its merits. The plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title have been at all material times and the plaintiff now is entitled to a zimindary which includes mauza Chur Daiya and the adjoining mauza Daiya. In the mauza Chur Daiya there are four howlas, of which three, namely, Komar Ali, Asraf Ali, and Ensan Bibi, belong to the defendant, who acquired them by auction purchase. The fourth howla, namely, Ram Manikya Pal, was in the past acquired by auction purchase by the plaintiff or one of his predecessors-in-title and is now the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff or one of his predecessors-in-title also acquired by auction purchase the taluk of Adinath Roy, and the same is now owned by the plaintiff. This taluk, according to the plaintiff's case, comprised lands both in mauza Daiya and in mauza Chur Daiya, but the Subordinate Judge and the District Judge came to the conclusion that it had not been proved that any part of the lands of the taluk were situated within mauza Chur Daiya. For many years the northern part of mauza Chur Daiya (including the defendant's howlas) has been submerged by the Maskata River, which bounded the mauza towards the north. Recently the lands in dispute, which are admittedly within the mauza Chur Daiya. were reformed. They are not yet fit for cultivation. For many years the northern part of mauza Chur Daiya (including the defendant's howlas) has been submerged by the Maskata River, which bounded the mauza towards the north. Recently the lands in dispute, which are admittedly within the mauza Chur Daiya. were reformed. They are not yet fit for cultivation. Upon their reformation these lands were taken possession of by the defendants. The plaintiff on his part laid claim to them, and on 27th May 1919, with certain other formal parties, filed a suit for recovery of possession in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Barisal. In his plaint the plaintiff stated his title as zemindar and alleged that his zemindary included the mauza Chur Daiya. The plaintiff further alleged that no right could accure to the defendants in respect of the disputed lands that during the settlement measurement of 1903 the entire lands of the defendants'howlas were found intact, and that the disputed land was the khas land appertaining to the plaintiff's Taluk Adinath Roy included in their zemindary. The plaintiff then claimed by way of relief that a decree for possession might be passed in favour of the plaintiff upon establishment of his right to hold khas possession of the land in suit and that the defendants might be evicted therofrom. The defendants in their written statement denied that there was any taluk called Adinath Roy in Chur Diya, and alleged that the disputed lands were reformations on the original sites of their howlas. A commissioner was appointed to hold a local enquiry, and his report was made on 24th June 1921. He came to the conlusion that there was no proof that the disputed land formed part of the Taluk Aiinath Roy. He prepared a map upon which he showed the boundaries of the defendants'howlas as indicated in the Settlement Record of 1903, and he drew the conclusion that a small portion of the disputed lands marked A on his map, being the extreme southwest corner of such lands, was part of the defendant's howlas, and that except to this extent it could not be said that the disputed lands were included in the defendants'howlas. The matter came to trial before the Subordinate Judge, and on 22nd September 1921, he dismissed the suit. The matter came to trial before the Subordinate Judge, and on 22nd September 1921, he dismissed the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge called attention to the contention, of the plaintiff that he as zemindar was the owner of the entire mouza and as such entitled to get possession of every bit of land save and except the small quantity which might be found to appertain to the defendants'howlas. He did not, however, deal with this contention, but held that the plaintiff had not proved that the lands in dispute formed part of Taluk Aditnath Ray and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed, and in his grounds of appeal made it clear that he was claiming the lands in dispute in zamindary right as well as in taluki right in respect of Taluk Adinath Roy. On 8th March 1923, the District Judge reversed the Subordinate Judge and decreed in the plaintiff's favour recovery of possession of the lands in dispute, except the small portion marked A on the Commissioner's map. This portion the plaintiff no longer claimed. The District Judge held that it was not shown that the howlas of the defendants'were nearly co-extensive with the total area of the mouza, i. e., so as to include the lands in dispute other than the portion marked A on the Commissioner's map, and that it was not conclusively shown, though it was probable, that lands of Taluk Adinath Roy were included in the mouza. He then pointed out that the plaintiff was zemindar of the mouza, and, as far as the suit was concerned, was suing as such, and held that the burden of proof lay on the defendants to show that the disputed lands were within their howlas. The defendants appealed to the High Court, and on 9th July 1925, the High Court delivered judgment dismissing the appeal. The defendants obtained leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and appealed accordingly. It was, but faintly contended before their Lordships'Board that if the plaintiff was entitled to rely upon his title as zamindar, the result of the suit, having regard to the findings of the District Judge, could be other than it was before the High Court. The plaintiff's title as zamindar is not questioned. It was, but faintly contended before their Lordships'Board that if the plaintiff was entitled to rely upon his title as zamindar, the result of the suit, having regard to the findings of the District Judge, could be other than it was before the High Court. The plaintiff's title as zamindar is not questioned. The lands in dispute are admittedly within the ambit of the zamindary and the defendants have failed to prove (except in respect of the portion marked A) that the lands are within their own howlas. In their Lordships'judgment, upon such a state of facts the plaintiff must succeed. It has, however, been urged by the defendants that the only case raised by the plaintiff in his plaint was one based upon his ownership of the taluk, and that, therefore, he is not entitled to succeed in his zemindary title if he has failed (as admittedly he has) to establish his taluki title. In their Lordships'judgment, the plaint was intended to raise the case of zemindary title, as well as that of taluki title, and the point which was before each of the Courts below is open to the plaintiff before their Lordships'Board. Even if, however, the plaint be regarded as ambiguous, all doubt as to its meaning was set at rest when the matter came before the Subordinate Judge Before him the case of zemindary title was raised, and from that time onward that aspect of the case was kept well to the front. If the defendants were originally misled by the language of the plaint and desired an opportunity of calling further evidence directed to the case of zemindary title, it was their duty to make their application at the earliest possible moment. No such application was in fact made and it may well be because there was not available any material beyond that already before the Court. It is now too late, in their Lordships'opinion, for the defendants to rely upon any alleged ambiguity in the plaint. In the result, therefore, their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the High Court was right and that the appeal should be dismissed, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. The appellants must pay the costs of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.