JUDGMENT Rau, J. - (sic) is an appeal by the Plaintiffs who are some of the co-proprietors of a temporary settled estate with shares aggregating to 13 annas 15 gandas. Defendant No. 1 is a co-proprietor holding the remaining 2 annas 5 gandas. The settlement preceding the current settlement expired in 1933, and the current settlement was concluded with Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiffs prayed, amongst other reliefs, that the settlement with Defendant No. 1 should be regarded as enuring to the benefit of all the co-proprietors. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit and hence this second appeal. 2. The only point that I need discuss is as to the effect of the settlement made with Defendant No. 1. The circumstances that led up to it have been stated in the judgment of the trial Court. After the expiry of the term of the previous settlement notices were duly issued to the proprietors calling upon them to take fresh settlement of the mahals for another period of 15 years from 1st April. 1033, to 31st March, 1948. The orders' bets disclose further that the proprietors, on reeeipt of notices, filed a petition praying for one month's time for execution of kabuliyats and time was allowed up to 22nd December 1932. It will also appear therefrom that none of the proprietors appeared on 22nd December, 1932 and Post card notices were issued on that date fixing 18th January, 1933, for their appearance. The order sheets show furthermore that on 12th January 1033 the Defendant No. 1 Pafulla alone appeared and took settlement of the estate on execution of kabuliyats. Tim settlement was, the record discloses, finally approved by the Director of Land Records by his letters Nos. XIII/37 2924, dated (sic) February, 1933 and XIII/41 2911, dated 8th February, 1933. 3. I may add that the order sheet states in express terms that the notices were issued under sec. 10, sub-sec. (-4) of Regulation VII of 1822, and that Defendant No. 1, Prafulla, was one of the proprietors. 4. This was, therefore, a clear case of a joint settlement effected under sec. 10, sub-sec. (4) and sub-sec. (5) of the aforesaid Regulation,--the notified absent co-proprietors being bound by the decision of those who attend and take settlement, In the present instance Defendant No. 1 appeared and took settlement. 4. This was, therefore, a clear case of a joint settlement effected under sec. 10, sub-sec. (4) and sub-sec. (5) of the aforesaid Regulation,--the notified absent co-proprietors being bound by the decision of those who attend and take settlement, In the present instance Defendant No. 1 appeared and took settlement. The other co-proprietors neither attended nor objected, so that the case is excluded from the scope of sec. 10, sub-sec. (6'). A similar question arose in the case of Khan Sahib Abdul Latif Chowdhury v. Dhirendra Chandra Roy 44 C.W.N. 323 (1939) and this Court decided that the resulting settlement was a joint settlement under the sub-sections already cited. It may further be observed that the lease in the present case is in a printed form headed " Agreement to be used in Temporary Settlement with proprietors" not, be it noted, with sadar malguzars. 5. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed and the suit decreed to this extent, namely, that.the settlement made with Defendant No. 1 shall be deemed to be a settlement with the Plaintiffs-Appellants as well and their possession confirmed. Parties will bear their own costs in the Courts below. The Appellants will get their costs of this appeal in this Court.