Judgment S.B. Sinha, J. This first appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 18.4.1983 passed by Shri Ibrar Hassan, Additional Subordinate Judge, Chaibasa in Title (Partition) Suit No. 43/1 of 1981-83, whereby and whereunder the said learned court decreed the plaintiffs-respondents' suit for partition. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. One Sukhu Rautia who, according to the defendants-appellants, was really Nandu Rautia was the owner of the properties in suit. He died leaving behind three sons namely, Maninath Rautia, Jadunath Rautia and Harinath Rautia. The plaintiff no. 1 is the daughter of Jadunath Rautia whereas the plaintiff no. 2 is the daughter of Harinath Rautia. Maninath Rautia died 40 years prior to the institution of the suit leaving behind original defendant nos. 1 and 2 as his heirs and successors. 4. According to the plaintiffs, Harinath Rautia died in or about 1959 whereas Jadunath Rautia died in or about 1960-62; where as according to the defendants, Harinath Rautia died in or about the year 1945 and Jadunath Rautia died in or about 1946. 5. The defendants further case appears to be that they being Rautias under a custom prevalent amongst their community, the married daughters do not get any share in their fathers properties. In this case it is admitted that in the event Jadunath and Harinath died after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 plaintiffs would have 1/3 share each in the joint family properties. 6. In this situation only two issues arose for consideration before the learned trial court namely as to whether Jadunath and Harinath died after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and whether the parties being Rautias, the married daughters do not inherit to their fathers' property in accordance with the custom prevailing amongst them. 7. So far as the second question is concerned, Mr. Bajaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants very fairly stated that there is nothing on record to show that after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any married daughter belonging to Rautias community, did not inherit her father's property. Mr. Bajaj further very fairly stated that it is the common case of the parties that they are governed by Hindu Law. A custom in order to take place of the law must be ancient. Mr. Bajaj further very fairly stated that it is the common case of the parties that they are governed by Hindu Law. A custom in order to take place of the law must be ancient. It was for the defendants to prove existence of such a custom. The question' of married daughters inheriting the properties of their fathers principally arose after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The learned court below, on the basis of the materials on record, has come to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to prove the existence of any such custom. This finding of fact has not been questioned before me. 8. In this situation, this Court is concerned only with the dispute about the dates of death of Jadunath and Harinath. 9. In this case, the plaintiffs examined five witnesses whereas the defendants examined twelve witnesses. Besides the oral evidences, the plaintiffs produced the finally published record of rights of the recent survey settlement operation wherein original defendants alongwith the plaintiffs-respondents were also co-owners of the properties. 10. Mr. Bajaj, however, submitted that from a perusal of the evidences of PW 1 who was the plaintiff no. 1, it would appear that she had been paying rent in respect of the suit properties 8 years prior to the survey settlement operation and as she admitted that the survey settlement operation started 3 years prior to the finally published record of rights, it must be held that she had been paying rent since 1953. According to the learned counsel, the question of payment of rent by the plaintiff no. 1 would arise in the year 1953 as her father must have died prior thereto. The learned counsel further submitted that PW 1 in paragraph 3 of her deposition further admitted that about the death of her father and uncle, the panchayat was informed. The learned counsel further submitted that PW5 who is Sarpanch had also admitted in his evidence that such a register wherein entries of the date of birth and death are maintained but the same having not been produced, an adverse inference should be drawn as against the plaintiffs. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of Ext. 1, it would appear that except a few plots, the possession of the original defendant no. 1 and/or the original defendant no. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of Ext. 1, it would appear that except a few plots, the possession of the original defendant no. 1 and/or the original defendant no. 2 had been shown in respect of the individual plots in the remarks column of the said parcha from which it can be inferred that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the properties in question. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that from the facts aforementioned, it is clear that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proof to prove that Harinath and Jadunath died after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 12. On the other hand, Mr. A.M. Sahay, tire learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that the statement made in paragraph 4 in the plaint to the effect that the plaintiffs had succeeded to the interest of their respective fathers had been admitted in paragraph 8 of the written statement and thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants to contend that the plaintiffs arc not their co-sharers. 13. The learned counsel further drew my attention to the deposition of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants and submitted that from a perusal thereof, it would appear that none of the witnesses could state the actual date of death of Jadunath and Harinath. 14. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. PW 3 is a formal witness. PW 1 in her deposition categorically stated that Jadunath died 3 years before the recent survey settlement operation. PW 2 had also slated that Jadunath died 3 years and Harinath died about 8 years prior to recent survey settlement operation. PW 4 had also stated that Jadunath died 3 years and Harinath died about 8 years prior to the survey settlement operation. PW 5 is the Sarpanch and in his evidence he stated that the records of rights of the village in question were finally published in the year 1964 and the survey operation commenced some times in the year 1963 and it was completed within a period of 1½ years. 15. From the evidences on records adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, there cannot be any doubt that both Jadunath and Harinath died after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 16. The defendant no. 15. From the evidences on records adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, there cannot be any doubt that both Jadunath and Harinath died after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 16. The defendant no. 1 who was examined as DW 12 stated that at the lime of his father's death, he was aged about 5 years old. This witness staled that Jadunath died 5-10 years prior to the survey settlement operation and Harinath died before Jadunath. The evidence of DW 12, therefore is evidently contrary to the statements made in the written statement. Even if it he held that Jadunath died 5 years prior to the survey settlement operation, the same would he after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 17. DW 5 in paragraph 6 of his deposition categorically admitted that Harinath died 1½ years prior to the survey settlement operation hut Jadunath died before Harinath. This witness held, therefore, proved the case of the plaintiffs. Similarly DW 6 merely stated that Jadunath died 10-15 years prior 10 the recent survey settlement operation and whereas DW 9 could not say as to how many years prior 10 the survey settlement operation Jadunath died. 18. DW 11 stated that he was aged about 6-7 years at the time of death of Harinath and within one year of his death Jadunath died. DW 11 is about 45 years old. His evidence cannot be believed in view of the fact that he has been materially contradicted by DWs 5, 9 and 12. 19. The learned trial court had looked to the demeneour of the witnesses examined on behalf of the parties. 20. It is now well settled that when a finding of fact is arrived at on the basis of parole evidence, the first appellate court should be loathe to interfere with the such findings of fact unless it is found that in arriving at such a finding the trial court has failed to consider an admissible evidence or has taken into consideration inadmissible evidences. 21. A civil suit has to be decided on broad probabilities of the case. 22. 21. A civil suit has to be decided on broad probabilities of the case. 22. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no material has been brought to my notice so as to enable me to hold that the findings of fact arrived at by the learned trial court on the basis of the parole evidence was not correct. 23. It is true that the plaintiffs have not brought on record the birth and death register allegedly maintained in the Gram panchayat. However, in this case, the plaintiffs have brought on record the entries made in the recent Survey Settlement operation wherein also their shares have been noted. The entries made in the record of rights are presumed to he correct in terms of Section 84 (3) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and in that view of the matter it was for the defendants to bring all such materials on record for rebutting the said presumption. 24. As indicated hereinbefore, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendant have been able to prove the said fact as to when Harinath and Jadunath died and in fact the statements of the witnesses examined on their behalf are contradictory to and inconsistent with each other. 25. It is true as condended by Mr. Sahay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that the statements made in paragraph 4 of the written statement have not been specifically denied but it is a settled law that the entire pleadings of the parties have to be read as a whole and it appears that second and third sub-paragraphs of paragraph 4 have not been traversed by the defendants by way of mistake. In any event that both the parties have led their evidence and in view of the fact that the plaintiffs were required to prove their title, no importance can be attached to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the written statement. 26. Taking thus all facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.