was decided that the property would be kept with Prayagbai till her lifetime for her maintenance and thereafter it would be divided amongst the heirs. He has taken into consideration the mutation entries also and, therefore, in terms of term No.5 of the compromise decree the property was required to be divided. The compromise decree, which has been produced before the Trial Court at Exh.23, should be considered along with Exh.39. In Exh.23, which was in fact Exh.17 in Regular Civil Suit No.199/1970, term No.3 would show that the information in paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the suit was admitted to all the persons. The suit was within limitation; yet the Trial Court erred and, therefore, the appeal was filed. In fact, taking into consideration the fact that the property was left by Narsu, now, it has to be divided into three parts and thereby the plaintiff would receive 1/3rd share. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the Second Appeal No.170 of 2006 and dismissal of Second Appeal No.699 of 2003. It will not be out of place to mention here that by order dated 23.02.2007 this Court admitted the Second Appeal No.699 of 2003 by framing following substantial questions of law.