Judgement JUDGMENT :- Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants against the reversing decision of the court below. 2. The following is the undisputed genealogical tree of the parties. 3.Mahani claims to be the adopted son of Panchu and he has filed this suit for partition of the Kha schedule property, which according to the plaintiff is the joint family property of the 3 branches of Baraju, Banchu and Panchu. According to defendants 1 and 2 the appellants herein, there was an amicable partition of the said property amongst the parties. 4. Both the courts have arrived at the concurrent finding of fact that the said property had not been partitioned and the same continues to be the joint family property of Baraju, Banchhu and Panchu and is liable to be partitioned. That concurrent finding of fact is not challenged in this appeal. With regard to the question of the plaintiff s adoption, the trial court held that he had not been adopted by Panchu. But the appellate court holds in favour of the plaintiff on that question. 5. Defendants 1 and 2 who are affected by the said finding of the appellate court have preferred this appeal. 6. In this appeal the only question for consideration is whether the finding of fact of the court below that Mahani was the adopted son of Panchu is correct or not. Mr. Satpathy challenges the said finding merely on the ground that the evidence on record on that aspect has not been properly assessed by the court below. A finding of fact cannot ordinarily be assailed on the aforesaid ground. However, in order to satisfy myself as to whether the said finding of fact has been arrived at on correct and proper consideration of the evidence on record or not I carefully scanned the evidence on record and am convinced that the said finding is perfectly correct and justified. P. Ws. 1 to 4 are the witnesses who have been examined to prove the plaintiff s case of adoption. Out of these witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 happen to be close relations of the parties. P. W. 3 is an elderly man of 67 years. He is of another caste and is a close neighbour of the parties. P. W. 4 is the plaintiff himself. On the evidence of P. Ws. Out of these witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2 happen to be close relations of the parties. P. W. 3 is an elderly man of 67 years. He is of another caste and is a close neighbour of the parties. P. W. 4 is the plaintiff himself. On the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 the court has rightly arrived at the finding that the plaintiff has been able to prove the essential ceremony of giving and taking of the plaintiff in adoption. They also stated that the adoption ceremony took place in the evening hours after Satyanarayan Puja was performed by Indramani Misra, a priest since dead, and in the function there was giving and taking of the plaintiff by the natural father and the adoptive father. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 on the factum of adoption has not been satisfactorily assailed in cross-examination and it has not been shown that the said witnesses were in any way interested for the plaintiff or were hostile towards the defendants. The defendants could not adduce any convincing oral evidence which could cast any doubt or belittle in any manner the weight of the evidence of adoption adduced by the plaintiff. The defendants produced a document, which has been marked as Ext. A, after the recording of evidence of both the sides was over, and at a stage when the argument of the case was to commence. The plaintiff had absolutely no opportunity to rebut that evidence. Ext. A is the certified copy of an entry in the loan register of a Co-operative Society. That certified copy merely shows that the plaintiff allegedly took loan of some money from the Co-operative Society. In that entry the plaintiff is shown as the son of Baraju. Mahani in his evidence denied to have taken any loan from the said Co-operative Society. From that certified copy it appears that Mahani s signature or mark was not obtained in the original entry and he had nothing to do with the said entry in the loan register. It is alleged that Mahani applied for the loan and in the loan application he had described himself as the son of Baraju. The said application was not called for and has not been exhibited in this case. It is alleged that Mahani applied for the loan and in the loan application he had described himself as the son of Baraju. The said application was not called for and has not been exhibited in this case. Apart from the aforesaid consideration, as the said document was filed at such a late stage and the plaintiff could not have any opportunity to have his say about the said document, the said certified copy of the entry in the loan register of a Co-operative Society cannot be utilised as a piece of evidence in this case. The court below on a discussion of the above and other aspects connected with this document has, on good grounds, not placed any weight or importance on this document. There is no other evidence worth the name to negative the convincing evidence of adoption adduced by the plaintiff, on a discussion of which the court below has arrived at the finding that Mahani had been adopted by Panchu as his son. On a careful reading of the impugned judgment and the relevant portions of the evidence on record I am satisfied that the finding of the court below on this aspect of the matter is perfectly correct and justified, and I do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding in any manner in this second appeal. 7. The court below after arriving at the aforesaid finding has ordered that Mahani being Panchu s adopted son will be entitled to 10 annas 8 pies share in the one-third share of Panchu in the Kha schedule property. It is urged by Mr. Satpathy and conceded by Mr. Ghose, that the above assessment of the plaintiff s share made by the court below is incorrect. On the concurrent finding of fact that the Kha schedule property was the joint family property of Baraju, Banchhu and Panchu, Panchu will have only one-third share in the Kha schedule property. Mr. Ghose concedes that as per the decisions on identical matters reported in AIR 1967 Ori 194 ; 1970 (1) CWR 201; AIR 1966 Bom 169 ; AIR 1974 Guj 23 and AIR 1975 Bom 257 (FB) Mahani in this partition will be entitled to 4/9th share in Panchu s one-third share in the Kha schedule property. Mr. Ghose concedes that as per the decisions on identical matters reported in AIR 1967 Ori 194 ; 1970 (1) CWR 201; AIR 1966 Bom 169 ; AIR 1974 Guj 23 and AIR 1975 Bom 257 (FB) Mahani in this partition will be entitled to 4/9th share in Panchu s one-third share in the Kha schedule property. Mahani s share as stated above is also supported by ground No. 2 in the memorandum of this appeal and Mr. Satpathy has nothing to state against the same. Mahani s share is decreed accordingly. The portion of para 8 of the impugned judgment incorrectly specifying the plaintiff s share as 10 annas 8 pies in Panchu s share is modified accordingly. The plaintiff is entitled to partition of his said share, and the directions to effect partition as contained in the impugned judgment are confirmed. 8. Excepting the above modification about the plaintiff s share in the impugned judgment, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with the above modification. In the circumstances parties are to bear their own costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed.