Judgment A.B.N.Sinha, J. 1. The plaintiffs-appellants instituted Partition Suit No. 50 of 1956, out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge: Muzaffarpur, seeking a partition of their alleged shares in properties described in as many as seven schedules appended to the plaint. In Schedule 1 comprised of 1(ka), 1(Kha), 1(ga) and 1(gha), they claimed share to the extent of twelve annas, the remaining four annas share belonging to the defendants first party. In the lands specified in Schedule 2, the plaintiffs claimed share to the extent of ten annas, the remaining six annas belonging to the defendants first and second parties. In Schedule 8 lands subdivided into 8(ka) and 3(kha), the plaintiffs claimed to the extent of half the other halt belonging to the defendants first party. In the lands described in Schedule 4 to the plaint, both in 4(ka) and 4(kha), a claim was laid to the extent of 1/3rd; in 4(ka) the remaining 2/3rd according to the plaintiffs case, belonged to the defendant first party and in 4(kha) the remaining 2/3rd interest belonged to the defendants first party and defendants 18 to 20, half and half. Share to the extent of five annas was claimed in the land comprised in Schedule 5, the remaining eleven annas belonging to the defendants first and second parties to the extent of three annas and to defendants 7 to 9 to the extent of eight annas. In the lands under the remaining two schedules, namely, in Schedules 6 and 7, the plaintiffs claimed to the extent of four annas and two annas 10 gandas, respectively. 2. Admittedly, one Rangi Singh was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and of defendants 1 to 6. These defendants constituted the defendants first and second parties. Rangi Singh had two sons. Mannu Singh and Gumani Singh. That there was a complete separation between Mannu Singh and Gumani Singh and that Mannu Singhs only son Bhagelu Singh died in a state of separation from the sons of Gumani Singh without leaving any male or female issue was also admitted. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 belonged to Gumani Singhs branch who had three sons, namely, Basawan (sic) Singh, Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh, Basawan Singh having two sons, namely, Ramdeni Singh and Sheodeni Singh. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 belonged to Gumani Singhs branch who had three sons, namely, Basawan (sic) Singh, Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh, Basawan Singh having two sons, namely, Ramdeni Singh and Sheodeni Singh. The latter, namely, Sheodeni Singh is defendant No. 1, defendants 2 to 3 being his sons, while defendant No. 4 is his grandson. Ramdeni Singh died leaving two sons, namely, Bihari Singh and Ruplal Singh. Ruplal Singh is defendant No. 5 and the widow of Bihari Singh is defendant No. 6. The plaintiffs represent Biseshwar Singhs branch, plaintiff No. 1 being the son of Bisheshwar Singh and plaintiffs 2 and 3 being his grandson and great grandson, respectively. Sukeshwar Singh admittedly died issueless. According to the case of the plaintiffs, Basawan Singh, the. father of defendant No. 1, and grandfather of defendant No. 5, had died during the lifetime of Gumani Singh, his father, and Ramdeni Singh, the elder brother of defendant No. 1 had pre-deceased Sukesar Singh. It was further the plaintiffs case that one Abhiklakh Singh, a near agnate of the plaintiffs and of defendants 1 to 6 died issueless leaving his widow Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer who had come into possession of her husbands estate and who subsequently had gifted the entire property; in her possession to Bhagelu Singh aforesaid under a registered deed of gift dated the 9th July 1911. At the time of the death of Bhagelu Singh, Basawan Singh, the father of defendant No. 1 being dead, only Bishrshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh entered into possession of the properties which had been obtained by Bhagelu Singh by gift in equal shares by virtue of succession. It was further the plaintiffs case that after the death of Gumani Singh, the sons of Basawan Singh and Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh had separated from one another in mess and business, but the properties bad not been partitioned by metes and bounds. It was further the plaintiffs case that after the death of Gumani Singh, the sons of Basawan Singh and Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh had separated from one another in mess and business, but the properties bad not been partitioned by metes and bounds. Thereafter, on Sukeshwar Singh dying issueless and Ramdeni Singh, the elder brother of defendant No. 1 having predeceased Sukeshwar Singh, the intent of Sukeshwar Singh was inherited by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 to the extent of half and half, and thus it was the plaintiffs case that in the properties described in Schedules 1(ka) to 1(gha) which at one time belonged to Bhagelu Singh exclusively they had share to the extent of -/12/-, the remaining -/4/- belonging to defendants 1 to 4. On similar devolution, the plaintiffs claimed -/10.00 annas interest in Khata Nos. 112, 30 and 175 of village Thikaha, otherwise called Aswari. The case of the plaintiffs in regard to the lands entered in Schedule 3(ka) was that they and the defendants first party had taken settlement of those lands; and in regard to the lands entered in Schedule 3(kha), their case was that Sukeshwar Singh had purchased those lands which, after the death of Sukeshwar Singh had come in possession and occupation of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed -/8/-interest in both Schedules 3(ka) and 3(kha) of the plaint. In the lands entered in Schedules 4(ka), the plaintiffs claimed 1/3rd share on the ground that those lands had been taken in settlement by the plaintiffs and the defendants first party; the plaintiffs having 1/3rd interest and the remaining 2/3rd belonging to the defendants first party. In regard to the lands entered in Schedule 4(kha), the plaintiffs case was that these lands had been taken in settlement by the plaintiffs and by the defendants first party and defendants 18 to 20 and thus the plaintiffs had 1/3rd interest therein defendants first party and defendants 18 to 20 having 1/3rd each. 3. In regard to the lands entered in Schedule 4(kha), the plaintiffs case was that these lands had been taken in settlement by the plaintiffs and by the defendants first party and defendants 18 to 20 and thus the plaintiffs had 1/3rd interest therein defendants first party and defendants 18 to 20 having 1/3rd each. 3. The lands entered in Schedule 5 and appertaining to khata No. 44 of mauza Parsauni Kapoor were owned by Bhagelu Singh and Gumani Singh to the extent of half and the remaining half belonged to Rajkaran Singh, the ancestor of defendants 7 to 9, and consequently out of the lands under Khata No. 44, the plaintiffs claimed -/5/- interest, the defendant first and second parties having -/3/-and the remaining -/8/- belonging to defendants 7 to 9. In regard to the land in Schedule 6 after its amendment by order dated the 18th September, 1957, the case of the plaintiffs was that in the khatian khata No. 3, plot No. 61 of village Ekaulia was entered in the names of three persons, namely, Amrit Rai, the ancestor of defendants 21 to 23. Sagam Rai, defendant No. 18 and Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer wife of Abilakh Rai in equal shares, and the plaintiffs claimed -/4/- interest in that khata. The lands appertaining to Schedule 7 were shown in the khatian in four shares; one share belonging to Bhagelu Singh and Gumaui Singh, another share to Rajkaran Singh and Pheku Rai, the ancestors of defendants 7 to 9 and the remaining two shares belonging to Lachhuman Rai and Maharaj Raj, the ancestors of defendants 10 to 17, out of the -/4/-interest in that khata belonging to Gumani Singh and Bhagelu Singh, the plaintiffs claimed 2 annas 10 gandas. On these allegations, the plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition claiming different shares in the different khatas as indicated above. 4. Apart from the formal written statements filed on behalf of minor defendants 9, 13 and 22, several sets of written statements were filed. Defendants 7 to 17, 21 and 22 who filed a joint written statement did not, however, take any interest in the suit after filing their written statements. Defendants 24 to 26 claimed as transferees from defendant No. 1 and quite naturally supported the case of the latter. Defendants 7 to 17, 21 and 22 who filed a joint written statement did not, however, take any interest in the suit after filing their written statements. Defendants 24 to 26 claimed as transferees from defendant No. 1 and quite naturally supported the case of the latter. Similarly, defendants 27 to 29 claimed to be vendees from the plaintiffs and their defence was that if the suit be decreed, the vended lands should be allotted to the plaintiffs patti so that their possession may not be disturbed. Both these sets of defendants, namely, defendants 24 to 26 and 27 to 29 led evidence in support of their respective transfers and to that extent lent support to the case of their transferors. Defendant No. 28 filed a separate written statement supporting the case of partition claiming shave to the extent of 2 annas 13 gandas 1 cauri 1 karant and odd in khata No. 3, villages Pagahia and Ekaulia comprised in Schedule 6 of the plaint and also in khata No. 175 comprised in Schedule 2 of the plaint. Defendants 18 to 20 also substantially supported the plaintiffs case of partition. They, however, claimed 1/3rd share in khata No. 3 of village Ekanlia and in khata No. 175 of village Thikha and further claimed an area of 3 kathas 10 dhurs in plot No. 119 from the east of khata No. 55 of village Pagahia on the basis of an alleged oral sale from Bhagelu Singh and Biseshwar Kuer. Defendants 1 to 6 filed a joint written statement. They really resisted the suit. They set up a case of previous partition some fifty years before the filing of their written statement. The first partition, according to these defendants, was between Mannu Singh and Gumani Singh who had separated from each other and had divided their lands by metes and bounds sometime even before the survey operation. The second time, there was a partition between the three sons of Gumani Singh, namely, between Basawan Singh, Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh who had survived their father, and it was wrong to say that Basawan Singh had predeceased his father, Gumani Singh. The third partition was effected in respect of the property of Sukeshwar Singh after he died issueless. The second time, there was a partition between the three sons of Gumani Singh, namely, between Basawan Singh, Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh who had survived their father, and it was wrong to say that Basawan Singh had predeceased his father, Gumani Singh. The third partition was effected in respect of the property of Sukeshwar Singh after he died issueless. While accepting the genealogy as set up by the plaintiffs, these defendants asserted that Bhagelu Singh died in 1913 and not in 1914, and Basawan Singh who had survived his father Gumani Singh was alive at the time of the death of Bhagelu Singh and Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer. While further accepting the case of gift by Mosst. Biseshwar of all the lands belonging to her and in her possession to Bhagelu Singh as set up in the plaint these defendants asserted that Bhagelu Singh had adopted Sheodeni Singh, defendant No. 1, as his kurta putra, and thus defendant No. 1 had come in possession and occupation of all the lands of Bhagelu Singh including the lands acquired by him by virtue of the gift from Mosst, Biseshwar Kuer save and except the lands under khata Nos. 30 and 112 of Schedule 2 of the plaint over which Bhagelu Singh had put the family members of Basawan Singh and Biseshwar Singh in possession and occupation to the extent of half and half. On these allegations, they challenged the correctness of the case of succession to Bhagelu Singh by Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh as set up in the plaint, and the claimed that they had full and exclusive right, interest and possession over all the lands of Bhagelu Singh except those over which he had in his life time put Basawan Singh and Biseshwar Singh in possession to the extent of half and half. Accordingly, their case was that in any event those lands of Bhagelu which had come to the defendants exclusively were not liable to be partitioned. The allegations made in paragraph 9 of the plaint about Schedule 4(ka) lands were challenged as wrong and false. It was said that defendants 1 and 2 alone took settlement of the said land, and, therefore, it belonged to them exclusively and could not be subjected to partition. The allegations made in paragraph 9 of the plaint about Schedule 4(ka) lands were challenged as wrong and false. It was said that defendants 1 and 2 alone took settlement of the said land, and, therefore, it belonged to them exclusively and could not be subjected to partition. Likewise, the lands described in Schedule 4(kha) of the plaint were claimed by defendants 1 and 2 exclusively on the ground that they bad taken settlement of those lands in the benami name of their relation, Jai Naram Singh. Accordingly, the lands described in Schedules 4(ka) and 4(kha) were not liable to partition. The extent of share claimed by the plaintiffs in Schedules 5 and 7 lands was challenged as incorrect, and in regard to the lands comprised in Schedule 6 of the plaint as it stood after the lands of khata No. 3 of village Pagahia were excluded from the plaint, exclusive title was claimed by the defendants, and it was asserted that it was not liable to partition 5. The trial Court has rejected the case of previous partition by metes and bounds and has further held that defendant No. 1 had been adopted as karta putra by Bhagelu, that Baswan Singh and Biseshwar did not predecease Bhagelu, that khata No. 97 of village Thikaha Aswari and the whole of khata No. 55 of village Pagahia minus 3 1/2 kathas from the east out of plot No. 119 and khata No. 29 of village Ekaulia were the exclusive properties of defendants 1 and 2 and could not be partitioned. In regard to khata No. 3 of village Pagahia, it found that defendant No. 1 and defendants 18 to 20 each set had one-third share; the remaining one-third belonged to the descendants of Amrit Rai in respect of which the sale-deed (Ex. C-II) had been executed. It further found that out of the lands of khata No. 3 of village Pagahia defendants 19 to 20 were in possession of 3 kathas in plot No. 151 from north and of 1 1/2 kathas in plot No. 405 from south, and that those lands were in the middle of these, plots; the western portion of those plots having been given in exchange by defendant No. 1 through deed of exchange (Ex. H-1), and the eastern portion of these two plots having been transferred through sale-deed (Ex. C-II). H-1), and the eastern portion of these two plots having been transferred through sale-deed (Ex. C-II). It has, however, held that since khata No. 3 of village Pagahia had been deleted from the plaint, the lands of this khata shall not be partitioned. Bhagelus share in khatas 112 and 30 as described in Schedule 2 of the plaint has been held to have been gifted by him orally to Basawan and Biseshwar half and half. They owned Gumanis interest in these two khatas also half and half. In the lands of khata No. 175 of village Thikaha Aswari which also appertains to Schedule 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs, defendants 18 to 20 and defendant No. 23 have been allotted different shares; the remainder has been directed to be left as residuary. It has been directed that a parti of 1/4th share for the plaintiffs, another of 1/3rd share for defendants 18 to 20 and third of 176th share for defendant 23 be carved out. While the lands in Schedule 4(ka) have been held to be the exclusive lands of defendants 1 to 6 and, therefore, not liable to partition, the plaintiffs have been allotted -/5/4 pies share in Schedule 4(kha). 5 annas share in Schedule 5 and 4 annas share in Schedule 6 and only 2 1/2 annas share in Schedule 7. On these findings, the suit has been decreed in part, and a preliminary decree for partition in respect of the lands specified above has been passed. 6. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court in regard to Schedules 1(k), 1(kha), 1(ga) and 4(ka), the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. Defendants 1 to 6 and defendant No. 21 have filed a cross objection directed against the plaintiffs as also against defendants 18 to 20 and defendant No. 23. 7. The appeal of the plaintiffs thus relates to the lands comprised in Schedules 1(ka), 1(kha), 1(ga) and 4(ka). It appears from paragraph 6 of the plaint that it was the plaintiffs case that while the lands comprised in Schedule 1(g) belonged to both Bhagelu Singh and Abilakh Singh, the husband of Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer, exclusively, the lands comprised in Schedule 1(ka) belonged to Bhagelu Singh, and those comprised in Schedule 1(kha) belonged to Abilakh Singh, respectively. It appears from paragraph 6 of the plaint that it was the plaintiffs case that while the lands comprised in Schedule 1(g) belonged to both Bhagelu Singh and Abilakh Singh, the husband of Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer, exclusively, the lands comprised in Schedule 1(ka) belonged to Bhagelu Singh, and those comprised in Schedule 1(kha) belonged to Abilakh Singh, respectively. In regard to the lands comprised in Schedule 4(ka), the case of the plaintiffs, as stated in paragraph 9 of the plaint, was that the said lands had been taken in settlement by both the plaintiffs and the defendants first party, and the plaintiffs share was to the extent of 1/3rd. It is the admitted case that by Ex. I-I, the deed of gift dated the 9th July, 1911, Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer, widow of Abilakh Singh, had given away all the properties including the lands under Schedules 1(kha) and 1(ga) of the plaint, of which she was in possession of after the death of her husband, to Bhagelu Singh. Thus, it was Bhagelu Singh who was the owner of the properties comprised in Schedules 1(ka) to 1(ga) of the plaint. Now, according to the plaintiffs case, on the death of Bhagelu Singh, the properties received by him through the deed of gift (Ex. I-I) as also his own properties devolved on Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh half and half; Basawan Singh, according to the plaintiffs case, having predeceased Bhagelu Singh, the branch of Basawan Singh, namely, defendants 1 to 6, therefore, did not get any share in the devolution. According to this case of the plaintiffs, they got -/8/- out of Bhagelus property on the death of Bhagelu and, later, on Sukeshwar Singh dying issueless, his -/8/- share devolved upon plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 half and half. It is in this manner that the plaintiffs claim -/12/-share in Bhagelus properties. Defendants 1 to 6, on the other hand, have set up a case of adoption of defendant No. 1 by Bhagelu as his karta putra, and their case, accordingly, is that all the properties of Bhageju including those which he had got by way of gift from Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer save and except such portion of it which he had before his death bestowed on others belonged to defendant No. 1 exclusively and were not liable to partition. Biseshwar Kuer save and except such portion of it which he had before his death bestowed on others belonged to defendant No. 1 exclusively and were not liable to partition. The trial Court, as already stated, has accepted the defendants case of adoption and has, accordingly, held that in the lands comprised in Schedules 1(ka), 1(kha) and 1(ga) the plaintiffs had no interest whatsoever, and those lands could not, therefore, be subjected to partition. It is obvious that if the finding reached by the trial Court on the question of adoption is well founded and justified, the plaintiffs case of devolution of Bhagelus property on Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh must fail, and it must be held that the plaintiffs have no interest whatsoever in the lands comprised in Schedules 1(ka) to 1(ga) of the plaint, 8. The onus rests on a person who seeks to displace the natural succession of property by the act of adoption. This onus can be discharged by adducing either direct evidence of the fact of adoption or by the existence of circumstances which go to strengthen the probability of an adoption having taken place or by both. It has to be appreciated that it is not necessary in every case to have direct evidence of the fact of adoption, for instance, where the adoption is alleged to have taken place long time back as in the instant case, direct evidence of the fact of adoption may not be available at all. The court, in such cases, has to come to a finding one way on the other on the basis of relevant circumstances, such as, conduct of the parties both before and after the adoption and the attendant and antecedent circumstances or the like which may exist in a particular case and which might tend to either strengthen or weaken the probability of the alleged adoption having taken place. In the present case, the adoption is alleged to have taken place about 53 years before the institution of the. suit; in the circumstances, it is not surprising that direct testimony of witnesses who might have been present at the alleged adoption is nor available. In the present case, the adoption is alleged to have taken place about 53 years before the institution of the. suit; in the circumstances, it is not surprising that direct testimony of witnesses who might have been present at the alleged adoption is nor available. We have, however, certain circumstances as evinced from various documents, which, in my opinion, must be held to be consistent with the adoption having taken place and the direct testimony of defendant No. 1 himself as D.W. 44 to the effect that he was taken as a kartaputra by Bhagelu Singh being consistent with those circumstances has rightly been accepted by the trial court. [After considering evidence in paras 9 to 11 the judgment proceeded.] 9. * * * 10. * * * 11. * * * 12. The aforesaid circumstances appear to be consistent with the defendants case of Bhagelu Singh having adopted defendant No. 1 as his karta putra. On no other hypothesis, defendant No. 1s dealing with Bhagelus properties and his possession thereof in the lifetime of Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh can be explained. It has, however, been urged on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants that it appears from the evidence of defendant No. 1 himself that at the time of the alleged adoption he was a minor and that, therefore, the said adoption could be made with the consent of the natural guardian of defendant No. 1 and in so far as there is no evidence on the record that any such consent was obtained, the adoption itself was an invalid one and conferred no title on defendant No. 1. There is no substance in this contention whatsoever. Defendant No. 1 at the time of his deposition in 1958 claimed to be 72 years of age. The court has also estimated his age to be 72 years. He, being 72 years of age in 1958, must be taken to have been born in 1886, and nineteen years from 1886 would be 1905. Therefore, according to his evidence in chief, the adoption took place in 1905. In cross-examination, he has stated that Bhagelu died seven or eight years after adoption and six years after the adoption Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer gifted away the properties to Bhagelu. This statement fits in with the year of Bhagelus death, that is, 1913, and with the year of the gift, that is, 1911. In cross-examination, he has stated that Bhagelu died seven or eight years after adoption and six years after the adoption Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer gifted away the properties to Bhagelu. This statement fits in with the year of Bhagelus death, that is, 1913, and with the year of the gift, that is, 1911. The other statement that he was aged seven years at the time of the gift appears to have been made in some confusion, and in the circumstances of this case no importance can be attached to the same. Reference was made in this connection to the evidence of D. W. 34 as well, and it was urged that according to the evidence of this witness to the effect that "Most. Biseshwar had gifted away all her properties to Bhagelu two to 4 years before adoption", the year of the adoption would be 1914 or 1915, but in the same paragraph D. W. 34 has stated that Bhagelu died eight years after adoption which would put the year of adoption in 1905 as has been stated by defendant No. 1 himself. Taking the evidence of D. W. 34 and that of D. W. 44 together, it appears that the adoption was in the year 1905 when defendant No. 1 was nineteen years of age. If, however, the latter statement of D. W. 34 is taken to be correct, then the adoption was in the year 1915 when defendant No. 1 would be very much older than nineteen years of age. In regard to an event which took place over half a century ago, such minor discrepancies as were sought to be brought out in the evidence of D. W, 34 and D. W. 44 are of no consequence whatsoever. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court has correctly held that at the time of adoption, defendant No. 1 was about nineteen years of age. Even if, however, it were permissible to hold that he was much younger at the time of his adoption, it cannot invalidate the adoption. The word Karta putra as used by people residing in Mithila, like the parties in the present case, ordinarily means Kritrim form of adoption though the Kritrim form of adoption as mentioned in smritis may not be recognised in its modern form as prevalent in Mithila. The word Karta putra as used by people residing in Mithila, like the parties in the present case, ordinarily means Kritrim form of adoption though the Kritrim form of adoption as mentioned in smritis may not be recognised in its modern form as prevalent in Mithila. A karta putra is taken in Mithila with the express object that the adoptee should perform the exequial rites of the adopter and should inherit his properties. According to Manu (Manu, IX, 169), two of the essential attributes of Kritrim son are that he should be endowed with filial virtues and be acquainted with the merit of performing obsequies and with the sin of omitting them; in other words, the adoptee should be of such an age that he can be supposed to be aware of his obligations of performing obsequies of the adopter and the sin attached to not performing the same. Accordingly, it does not matter whether the adoptee be a major or a minor. All that is necessary is that he should have filial affection for the adopter and should be aware of his aforesaid obligations. That these attributes can be found in boys of tender age can hardly be denied. In fact, it is well settled that in taking a karta putra no ceremonies are necessary and the form to be observed is simple enough. The adopter addressing the person to be adopted says "Be my son", and the adoptee replies "I am become thy son". In the circumstances, even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that defendant No. 1 was of tender age at the time of his adoption as a karta putra by Bhagelu Singh, it cannot invalidate the adoption. 13. On the factum of adoption, the negative evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs through the testimonies of P. Ws. 4, 7, 12 and 14 can hardly cany any weight and cannot serve to disprove the defence case in support of adoption. It is not necessary to deal with the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in detail examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, because nothing has been pointed out in this court against the evaluation and appraisement of the evidence of those witnesses by the trial court. It is not necessary to deal with the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in detail examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, because nothing has been pointed out in this court against the evaluation and appraisement of the evidence of those witnesses by the trial court. It may suffice to point out that, according to the evidence of these witnesses, the properties of Bhagelu were inherited by Biseshwar Singh and Sukeshwar Singh on Ebagelus death and that Sheodeni, namely, defendant No. 1 did not get any interest in the same. It is in support of that case of theirs that they have made the statement that Bhagelu had not adopted Sheodeni as the karta putra. I have already shown above the various circumstances including the admission of P. W. 14, the plaintiff himself, in respect of Thikaha and Pagahiya lands belonging to Bhagelu Singh were granted in due course to defendant No. 1 alone, and that it was defendant No. 1 who had the custody of the papers of Bhagelu Singh and was recorded in the landlords sherishta in respect of those lands. The following statement made by the plaintiff No. 1 (P. W. 14) in the course of his cross-examination may be usefully quoted. "I have enquired from none if Bhagelu adopted defendant No. 1. On the death of Bhagelu, receipts in respect of Bhagelus properties began to be granted in the name of defendant No. 1 alone, because defendant No. 1 was an amla of the kothi. Then says that defendant No. 1 was not an amla of the kothi, but he had concern with the kothi being on inviting terms with the amlas of the kothi. These amlas were Jagdeo Lal patwari and his son Lachhman Lal. I never told any pleader that defendant No. 1 got rent receipts granted collusively in his own name through the amlas of the kothi. I do not remember since when Jagdeo Lal is patwari of the kothi. I never filed any petition before the Kothi that rent receipts were collusively got granted by Defendant No. 1 in his own name. I never told any pleader that defendant No. 1 got rent receipts granted collusively in his own name through the amlas of the kothi. I do not remember since when Jagdeo Lal is patwari of the kothi. I never filed any petition before the Kothi that rent receipts were collusively got granted by Defendant No. 1 in his own name. I or Sukeshwar or my father Bisesar made no attempt to get the name of defendants 1 and 2 removed from the records of the kothi and from the rent receipts." From the above statement, it clearly follows that the attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to show that the receipts in respect of Bhagelu Singhs lands were obtained by defendant No. 1 or that his name was entered in the landlords sherishta collusively has miserably failed. Under the circumstances, no weight can be attached to the negative evidence adduced by the plaintiffs that Bhagelu Singh did not adopt defendant No. 1 as his karta-putra. 14. According to the evidence of defendant No. 1 (D. W. 44), it is clear that Bhagelu Singh in adopting defendant No. 1 as his karta-putra ensured two things; (1) the performance of his exequial rights and (2) the inheritance to his properties. His evidence in this respect is as under: "Bhagelu had adopted me by performance of a ceremony. He told me that he was taking me as his karta putra. I accepted it. I also performed the Dah-Sanskar sradh of Bhagelu He also gave me his properties of Pagahian Ekoulia and Thikkan." Though there has been some cross-examination on the factum of adoption the purpose behind the adoption of the object which Bhagelu Singh wanted to achieve by adopting defendant No. 1 as his karta-putra had remained unchallenged Once It is held that defendant No. 1 was adopted as a karta putra and that he actually performed the shradh ceremonies of Bhagelu Singh, the adoptive father, he alone was entitled to inherit Bhagelu Singhs properties. 15. It follows from the foregoing discussion that defendant No. 1 was adopted by Bhagelu as his karta putra and that he performed his shradh ceremonies and inherited his properties save and except such which Bhagelu Singh in his life time had bestowed on others. According to the evidence of defendant No. 1 himself. 15. It follows from the foregoing discussion that defendant No. 1 was adopted by Bhagelu as his karta putra and that he performed his shradh ceremonies and inherited his properties save and except such which Bhagelu Singh in his life time had bestowed on others. According to the evidence of defendant No. 1 himself. Bhagelu Singh had given away some of his properties, namely, his share in khata No. 112 of village Thikaha and in khata No. 30 of village Parsauni Kapoor to Basawan Singh and Biseshwar Singh half and half. Therefore, barring these properties, the rest were inherited by defendant No. 1, It is not disputed that the properties covered by Schedules 1 (ka), 1 (kha) and, 1 (ga) were owned by Bhagelu Singh either through the deed of gift from Mosst. Baseshwar Kuer or otherwise, and, therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiffs have no interest in those properties. It is, however, equally clear that none of the defendants other than deft. I can have title to those properties, because the sons or other heirs of a karta putra do not take any interest in the property of the adoptive father; the relationship between the adoptee and adopter being limited to the contracting parties themselves and not extending further in either side. The finding of the trial court that the lands in Schedules 1 (ka), 1 (kha) and 1 (ga) were the properties of defendants 1 to 7 will have, therefore, to he modified, and it must be held that all these lands are the exclusive properties of defendant No. 1 and, as such cannot be subjected to partition. Indeed, the finding of the trial court that defendants 2 to 6 as well were interested in these, lands is contrary to what is stated in paragraph 18 of their written statement. In that paragraph, defendants 1 to 6 have stated that "defendant No. 1 of the 1st party has been in separate possession and occupation of all the lands which belonged to Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer" and that he "has been in separate possession and occupation of the entire property left by Bhagelu Singh in several villages as he is the adopted son of Bhagelu Singh". Biseshwar Kuer" and that he "has been in separate possession and occupation of the entire property left by Bhagelu Singh in several villages as he is the adopted son of Bhagelu Singh". Even apart from the case of adoption, the lands described in the Schedules 1 (ka), 1 (kha) and 1 (ga) having been in the continued possession of defendant No. 1 for over forty years since the death of Bhagelu Singh, he will have acquired an indefeasible title to these properties. In no circumstance, therefore, can the plaintiffs claim any interest therein. 16. In regard to 9 kathas of land bearing plot No. 164 appertaining to khata No. 51 of village Parsauni Kapoor comprised in Schedule 4 (ka) of the plaint as well, the claim of the plaintiffs cannot be sustained. According to the plaintiffs case, the lands comprised in this schedule were taken in settlement in the names of defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 1, and that they had 1/3rd share and the, defendants had the remaining 2/3rd. Defendants 1 to 6, on the other hand, claimed that the entire 9 kathas of lands belonged to them and that the plaintiff had no interest whatsoever in those lands. The plaintiffs have examined P. Ws. 7, 9 and 12 in support of their case. They have how ever, produced no documentary evidence in support of their title or possession. The defendants, on the other hand, have not only examined Suraj Prasad as D. W. 46, the person whom P. W. 12 admitted to have been the scribe of the patta and the kabuliyat, they have produced the kabuliyat (Ext. D-1) and rent receipts (Exts. A-1/8 to A-1/11) in support of their exclusive title and possession. D. W. 46 has stated that it was defendant No. 1 alone who took settlement of 9 kathas of land in question under the Kabuliyat (Ext. D-1), and it was he who was being granted rent receipts in respect of the settled lands. The receipts, as pointed out above, are Exts. A-I/8 to A-I/11, In face of these documents and in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of P. Ws. D-1), and it was he who was being granted rent receipts in respect of the settled lands. The receipts, as pointed out above, are Exts. A-I/8 to A-I/11, In face of these documents and in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of P. Ws. 7, 9 and 12, as have been pointed out by the trial court, the finding reached by the court below to the effect that the lands comprised in this schedule were the exclusive lands of defendants 1 to 6 cannot be interfered with. 17. In the result, it must be held that the lands comprised in Schedule 1(ka), 1 (kha) and 1(ga) belong exclusively to defendant No. 1 and the lands comprised in Schedule 4(ka) belong to defendants 1 to 6. None of these lands can be the subject matter of partition, as the plaintiffs have no interest in anyone of them. In the result, this appeal has no merit and it must fail. The decree of the trial court in regard to the four schedules which is the subject matter of this appeal is confirmed. 18. The cross-objection on behalf of defendants respondents 1 to 6 and defendant-respondent No. 21 is directed against the plaintiffs and defendants-respondents 19 to 20 and 23. 19. It may be stated at the outset that defendants 19 to 20 in paragraph 6 of their written statement have claimed 1/3rd share in the lands of khata No. 175 of village Thikaha Aswari and of khata No. 3 of village Ekaculia and have stated in that paragraph that they were in joint possession of the lands of these two khatas and that in case of partition they are entitled to separate patti for 1/3rd share out of lands of the said khatas. They have further claimed an area of 8 kathas 10 dhurs from the eastern side in plot No. 119 appertaining to khata No. 55 of village Pagahia on the basis of an oral sale from Bhagelu Singh and Biseshwar Kuer, and that in case of partition the said area of 3 kathas 10 dhurs be directed to be allotted to them. They have claimed 1/3rd share in khata No. 3 of village of Pagahiya and in khata No. 199 of village Thikaha Aswari and have claimed that in the event of partition a separate patti for these defendants to the extent of 1/3rd share, out of the lands of those khatas be carved out. Defendant No. 23 in her written statement claimed share to the extent of the 2 annas 13 gandas and odd in khata No. 3 of village Pagahia comprised in schedule No. 6. She, however did not claim to have a separate takhta allotted to her. 20. The first khata, which is the subject matter of the cross-objection is khata No. 175 of village Thikaha Aswari comprised in Schedule 2 of the plaint. The trial court has directed carving out of one patti of 1/4th share for the plaintiffs and one patti of 1/3rd share for defendants 18 to 20 and one patti of 1/6th share for defendant No. 23 leaving the remaining share as residuary. This khata was introduced into the plaint in Schedule 2 thereof by an amendment, and an area of 2.11 acres comprised of three plots appertaining to this khata was sought to be partitioned. The plaintiffs claimed 1/4th share. It appears from the Record of rights that this khata was recorded in the names of defendant No. 18, Most. Biseshwar Kuer and Amrit Rat in equal shaves. Most. Biseshwar Kuer (vide Ext. 1-1) gifted to Bhagelu Singh along with other land an area of 2.11 acres bearing plots 1372, 1277 and 1291 of khata No. 175 of village Thikaha Aswari. This is precisely the land which has been included in Schedule 2 of the plaint. I have already held above that it was defendant No. 1 alone who was entered in the landlords sherishta in respect of the lands which were acquired by Bhagelu Singh from Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer by gift, and it was he who alone has been paying rent in respect of those lands. The case of acquisition by Bhagelu Rai by gift of properties belonging to Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer and of adoption of defendant No. 1 by Bhagelu Rai as the latters karta putra having been found to be true, the decree of the trial court granting -/4/-share to the plaintiffs in this khata cannot be maintained. The case of acquisition by Bhagelu Rai by gift of properties belonging to Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer and of adoption of defendant No. 1 by Bhagelu Rai as the latters karta putra having been found to be true, the decree of the trial court granting -/4/-share to the plaintiffs in this khata cannot be maintained. It must be held that the aforesaid area of 2.13 acres belonged to defendant No. 1 exclusively. These lands, therefore, appertaining to khata No. 175 as mentioned in Schedule 2 of the plaint, will not be subjected to partition. It is needless to point out that the trial court has wholly misdirected itself in allowing any share to the plaintiffs in this khata on the ground that this khata does not find mention in paragraph 10 of the written statement or in the schedule attached to the written statement. The schedule attached to the written statement clearly related to such khatas or lands which were at one time admittedly joint. The cross-objection in regard to khata No. 175 must, therefore, be allowed, and the decree in so far as it relates to khata No. 175 must be set aside. As this khata will not be subjected to partition, there will be no occasion for carving out any takhta to the extent of 1/3rd share in favour of defendants 18 to 20 or 1/6th share in favour of defendant No. 23. 21. The decree of the trial court in regard to the land comprised in Schedule 4 (kha) of the plaint has also been challenged as erroneous on behalf of defendants 1 to 6. They claimed, the whole of the lands under that schedule as their exclusive lands on the ground that they took settlement of these lands in the name of Jainarain Singh, a relation of theirs. According to the plaintiffs, on the other hand, they had 1/3rd share in those lands the remaining 2/3rd belonging to defendants 1 to 6 and to defendants 18 to 20. The patta (Ext. 1/a) standing in the name of Jai Narain Singh who, according to the case of both the parties, was a mere name lender has been produced by the plaintiffs. They have also produced one rent receipt (Ext. 2/U) in respect of the lands settled under this patta. The defendants on the other hand, have produced two receipts (Exts. A-I/27 and A-I/28) from their custody. They have also produced one rent receipt (Ext. 2/U) in respect of the lands settled under this patta. The defendants on the other hand, have produced two receipts (Exts. A-I/27 and A-I/28) from their custody. There is no satisfactory evidence on the record to show that the plaintiffs have obtained the possession of Ext. 1(a), the patta, or of Ext 2(u) surreptitiously. The possession of receipts by both the plaintiffs as well as defendants 3 to 6 goes to indicate that both of them are interested in the land. I have gone through the evidence of D. Ws. 19, 22, 31, 39, 48 and 50 who have been examined on behalf of the defendants in support of their ease that the lands taken in settlement in the name of Jainarain Singh (D. W. 39) belonged exclusively to the defendants 1 to 6, and I find that their evidence is highly discrepant and contradicts each other in some respects. The trial court has discussed the evidence of P. Ws. 7, 12 and 14 as also the evidence of the defendants witnesses referred to above and has, in my opinion, rightly discarded the evidence of the defendants witnesses in this respect. D. Ws. 19 and 22 do not appear to be competent witnesses at all inasmuch as neither of them were able to give the plot number or khata number of the settled lands. D. W. 31, besides being an interested witness as he was an agnatic relation of the defendants, has admitted that the settlement did not take place in his presence, nor was the patta executed in his presence. Jainarain Singh (D. W. 39) in whose name the patta stands, being a close relation of the defendants, is naturally interested in them. Moreover, while according to his evidence the premium and rent of the said land were, settled in the compound of the Paru registration office with the Tahsildar of the Kothi, according to defendant No. 3 (D. W. 30), these matters were settled at the Kothi itself with the Manager. According to D. W. 39, the Manager was not present at the negotiation, and the only persons present were himself and defendant No. 3 (D. W. 50); but according to D. W. 48 he also was present at the time of settlement. It is quite clear, therefore, that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of these witnesses. According to D. W. 39, the Manager was not present at the negotiation, and the only persons present were himself and defendant No. 3 (D. W. 50); but according to D. W. 48 he also was present at the time of settlement. It is quite clear, therefore, that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of these witnesses. I see no reason to interfere with the finding reached by the trial court in regard to the hinds composed in Schedule 4 (kha) of the plaint. The plaintiffs case in regard to the lands in this schedule has rightly been accepted, and accordingly the takhta bandis directed to be made by the trial court must stand and there is no merit in the cross-objection so far as the lands in this schedule are concerned. 22. In regard to the lands comprised in Schedule 5 of the paint, the plaintiffs have been given 5 annas share, but it appears from the record of rights (Ext. 5/a) that khata No. 44 of village Parsauni Kapoor was recorded in the sames of Ramkaran Rai son of Harilal Rai and Pheku Rai son of Paltan Rai in equal shares and Bhagelu Rai son of Mannu Rai and Gumani son of Rangi Rai one share in equal shares. The defendants case appears to be in accordance with the entry in the survey record of rights, I have already held above that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the interest of Bhagelu Rai in any khatas other than 112 and 30 as mentioned in Schedule 2 of the plaint. Defendants 7 to 9 are the heirs of Ramkaran Rai and Pheku Rai. A preliminary decree for partition will therefore, be drawn up in accordance with the shaves specified in the survey record of rights. The direction that the plaintiffs will have five annas share, in Khata No. 44 of mauza Parsauni Kapoor will be modified, and they will have only eight annas share out of Gumani Rais interest in the said khata. 23. The direction that the plaintiffs will have five annas share, in Khata No. 44 of mauza Parsauni Kapoor will be modified, and they will have only eight annas share out of Gumani Rais interest in the said khata. 23. In Schedule 6, after the exclusion of khata No. 3 of village Pagahia by order dated the 18th September, 1957, the only khata which remains is khata No. 3 of village Ekaulia comprised of plot No. 61 only, having a total area of 20 decimals, in this land, the plaintiffs have been held entitled to 1/4th share, defendants 18 to 20 to 1/3rd share and defendant No. 23 to 1/6th share, and the remainder has been directed to be left as residuary. In the khatian (Ext. 5/c), this khata is recorded in the name of Amrit Rai son of Jahal Rai Sagam Rai son of Pitambar Rai and Most. Biseshwar Kuer wife of Abilakh Rai in equal shares. In the plaint in Schedule 6, only 20 decimals out of the total area of 61 decimals of this khata are included, in other words, the plaintiffs claimed interest in the land appertaining to Bisheshwar Kuers share. It appears, however, from Ext. 1-1, the deed of gift by Most, Biaheshwar Kuer to Bhagelu Singh, that an area of 20 decimals out of plot No. 61 appertaining to khata No. 3 of village Ekaulia was gifted by Mosst. Biseshwar Kuer to Bhagelu Singh. I have already held above that in respect of the gifted land as also other lands of Bhagelu Singh, save and except those which he had bestowed on others, defendant No. 1 alone has title and he alone has been in possession thereof. Accordingly, the land shown in Schedule 6 of the plaint is the exclusive property of defendant No. 1 and cannot be subjected to partition. As this land will not be subjected to partition at all, no question of carving out separate takhtas in favour of defendants 18 to 20 or in favour of defendant No. 23 arises. 24. In regard to Schedule 7 lands of the plaint which appertain to khata No. 31 of village Parauni Kapoor, the plaintiffs claimed 2 annas 10 gandas share. The trial court has directed a partition of this khata and has allowed the plaintiffs 2% annas share therein leaving the remainder as residuary. It appears, however, from the Khatian (Ext. 24. In regard to Schedule 7 lands of the plaint which appertain to khata No. 31 of village Parauni Kapoor, the plaintiffs claimed 2 annas 10 gandas share. The trial court has directed a partition of this khata and has allowed the plaintiffs 2% annas share therein leaving the remainder as residuary. It appears, however, from the Khatian (Ext. 5/a) that this khata stands recorded in the names of Bhagelu Rai and Gumani Rai one share in equal shares, Ramkaran Rai and Pheku Rai, the ancestors of defendants 7 to 9 one share in equal shares, and Lachhuman Rai and Manraj Rai, ancestors of defendants 10 to 17 two shares in equal shares. It thus appears that Bhagelu and Gumani had 1/4th interest in this khata. Out of that Bhagelu was entitled to half, that is to the extent of 1/8th and Gumani was entitled to the remaining 1/8th. The plaintiffs will be entitled to half of Gumanis interest only, the other belonging to defendants 1 to 6. They will not be entitled to any interest of Bhagelu in that khata. A preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of half of Gumanis interest, will, therefore, be drawn up and the decree passed by the trial court will stand modified accordingly. 25. The finding of the trial court that there was no previous partition as alleged by the defendants was not challenged in this court. 26. The trial court has held that the lands comprised in Schedule 1 (ga) belonged to defendants 1 to 6 exclusively except 3 kathas and odd lands out of plot No. 119 which has been held to belong to defendant No 18. But as the lands comprised in Schedule 1(ga) will not be subjected to partition, the question of carving out a separate takhta of 3 kathas and odd out of plot No. 119 in favour of defendant No. 28 does not arise. 27. In the result, the cross-objection will stand allowed in respect of khata No. 175 comprised in Schedule 2, khata No. 3 of village Ekaulia comprised in Schedule 6, and the shares to which the plaintiffs have been held entitled to in respect of the lands comprised in Schedules 5 and 7 will stand modified as indicated above. The cross-objection in regard to the lands comprised in Schedule 4(kha) will, however, stand rejected. 28. Mr. The cross-objection in regard to the lands comprised in Schedule 4(kha) will, however, stand rejected. 28. Mr. S.S. Verma appeared for defendants 27 to 29, who are the vendees from the plaintiffs. It is not necessary to deal with their case separately as they claim from the plaintiffs. If, however, any land which they claim to have purchased from the plaintiffs has been held liable to be partitioned under the decree of this court, the Commissioner who will prepare the takhtabandis will, as far as possible, see to it that the lands purchased by these defendants will be allotted to the plaintiffs patti. If, however, the lands or plots purchased by them are not to be partitioned at all because their vendors the plaintiffs have no interest in them, they will naturally have no further say in the matter 29. In the result, the appeal fails as a whole and the same is dismissed, with this modification that defendant No. 1 alone is held to be in exclusive possession in respect of the properties described in Schedules 1(ka), 1 (kha) and 1 (ga), with cost payable to defendants 1 to 6. The cross-objection is allowed in part as indicated above with proportionate costs to defendants 1 to 6 payable by the plaintiffs. There will, however, be only one set of hearing fee in either case. Mahapatra, J. 30 I agree.