Judgment S. N. Mishra, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this first appeal, which has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated the 30th June, 1976 passed in a suit for partition, by the 3rd Addl. Subordinate Judge, siwan. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for partition claiming 2/3rd share in the suit property fully described in Schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that one Fakir Mahto had three sons, namely, Sheo Shankar Mahto, Ratan Mahto and Lakhan Mahto. Sheo Shanker Mahto had two sons, namely, Ramrup Mahto, plaintiff no.1 and Ram Prasad Mahto plaintiff No.2. Ratan Mahto had one son and one daughter, who are defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit. Similarly, Lakhan Mahto had one daughter, namely, Anupi Devi, defendant No.3, in this case. The genealogical table mentioned in the plaint is not disputed. What is disputed is only th;at Anupi-Devi defendant No.3, is not the daughter of Lakhan Mahto. It is stated that fakir Mahto and his co-sharers had 6 Bighas, 10 Kathas and 13 Dhurs of land in Village sani-Basantpur. It is alleged that there had been a partition in the family by metes and bounds before the revisional survey and the lands mentioned in Schedule 1 to the plaint fell id the share of Fakir Mahto. It is further alleged that Fakir Mahto, after partition, acquired certain lands in Village Jagdishpur, district Champaran out of the joint family funds, which are mentioned in Schedule 2 to the plant. It is also alleged that after the death of Fakir Mahto, his three sons inherited his lands and came in possession thereof jointly. According to the plaintiff, all the co-sharers had partitioned among themselves, but the agricultural lands remained in jointness. It is further alleged that some lands were being cultivated jointly and some lands separately according to their convenience. It is further alleged that after the death of Sheo Shankar mahto, the plaintiffs acquired the lands of their father, Sheo Shankar Mahto. Similarly, defendant No.1 inherited the lands of his father, Ratan Mahto. and after the death of lakhan Mahto, his daughter, namely. It is further alleged that after the death of Sheo Shankar mahto, the plaintiffs acquired the lands of their father, Sheo Shankar Mahto. Similarly, defendant No.1 inherited the lands of his father, Ratan Mahto. and after the death of lakhan Mahto, his daughter, namely. Anupi devi, who is defendant No.3, also came in possession of the lands of the share of her father, Lakhan Mahto, and thereafter, she sold her share to the plaintiffs and, accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share in the landed property of the family. It is alleged that the ancestral house belonging to the parties fell down and, thereafter, the plaintiffs sold the land to Hussaini Mahto and took other land in lieu thereof over which they have constructed their house and defendant No.1 had also constructed his house in schedule 2 land. The plaintiffs mostly reside in Village basantpur. They go to Village Jagdishpur to divide the produce of the land. Since the defendant No.1 usually resides in Village jagdishpur, he often comes to Village Basantpur to get his share in the produce of the lands. When they felt difficulty in cultivating the lands jointly, they demanded partition. Defendant No.1 refused to concede to their requests as a result of which the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs, as stated above. 2. Defendants No.1 and 2 appeared and filed a joint written-staternent. Apart from taking the usual defence, it is stated that the suit is not maintainable in absence of necessary parties inasumuch as one Husaini Mahto, who has purchased the land of Khata No.144 from the plaintiffs and other settlees of the lands of Khata No.458 have not been made parties to the suit. It is alleged that the suit is bad for partial partition. It is further alleged that wrong plot numbers have been mentioned in the two schedules to the plaint. According to the defendants, Lakhan Mahto died in the life-time of his father, Fakir Mahto, in the state of jointness and Lakhan Mahto had died issuless. It is alleged that the suit is bad for partial partition. It is further alleged that wrong plot numbers have been mentioned in the two schedules to the plaint. According to the defendants, Lakhan Mahto died in the life-time of his father, Fakir Mahto, in the state of jointness and Lakhan Mahto had died issuless. Besides, wife of Lakhan mahto had pre-deceased her husband and further defendant No.3, Anupi is not the daughter of Lakhan Mahto; rather, she is the daughter of Sheo Shankar Mahto and, as such, she has no right, title and interest and the document executed by her during the pendency of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs is a forged and fabricated one. It is further alleged that the lands pertaining to Khata No.458 of Village Jagdishpur measuring 7 Bighas, 14 Kathas and 2 Dhurs were taken in settlement by Ratan Mahto in the name of his father. Fakir Mahto, and the said lands were auction-sold in execution of a rent decree and were purchased by the ex-landlord, who took delivery of possession of the same subsequently after separation in the family. Defendant No.1 took settlement of the lands pertaining to various plots out of his self income and came in possession thereof on payment of rent to ex-landlord as well as the State of bihar. According to the defendants, as stated above, Lakhan Mahto died in the life time of his father and Fakir Mahto partitioned the lands between Ratan Mahto and Sheo Shankar mahto and according to the partition, Sheo shankar Mahto was alloted the entire lands of village Basantpur and Ratan Mahto was alloted the lands of Village Jagdishpur and, accordingly, the parties are coming in possession of the lands of their respective share since 1340 fasli. Anupi, defendant No.3, is not the daughter of Lakhan Mahto but she is the daughter of Sheo Shankar Mahto. She has right, title and interest in the disputed lands, and the alleged sale deed executed by her during the pendency of the suit is a forged and fabricated document. Sheo Shankar Mahto left the village for ever, as he became sadhu. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below has framed as many as six issues out of which issue Nos.3 and 4 are: " (3) Is the suit bad for defect of parties, and for partial partition? Sheo Shankar Mahto left the village for ever, as he became sadhu. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below has framed as many as six issues out of which issue Nos.3 and 4 are: " (3) Is the suit bad for defect of parties, and for partial partition? (4) Is there any unity of title and possession between the plaintiffs and defendants with respect to the suit lands?" 4. The Court below, on a consideration of the evidence-both oral and documentary-has non-suited the plaintiffs with respect to the properties described in Schedule- 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, passed by the Court below, the plaintiffs filed the instant first appeal for the reliefs, as stated above.5. Mr. Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted, firstly, that the Court below has failed to consider the relevant documents as well as committed an error of record, while non-suiting the plaintiffs with respect to the lands, in question. Secondly, it has been submitted that the Court below has wrongly placed the onus upon the plaintiffs while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the Court below, on consideration of the evidence-both oral and documentary-adduced on behalf of the parties, has dismissed the suit. As regards shifting of onus is concerned, it is submitted that both parties have adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and, as such, shifting of onus upon the plaintiffs has no significance. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in case of Haquik Mian v. Rajendra Prasand and Ors. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to go through the evidence-both oral and documentary-adduced on behalf of the partis in support of their respective claims. In the Court below, the plaintiffs have examined altogether 11 witnesses; whereas,the defendants have examined as. many as 15 witnesses in their support. P. W.1 is Indrasan prasad, who belongs to the same village as that of the plaintiffs. He has stated that he is neither related to the family nor does he know the details of the family members. He has stated that Sheo Shankar Mahto left the village when he was 30 years of age. P. W.1 is Indrasan prasad, who belongs to the same village as that of the plaintiffs. He has stated that he is neither related to the family nor does he know the details of the family members. He has stated that Sheo Shankar Mahto left the village when he was 30 years of age. He has further stated that the parties were separate in mess, but the landed property remained joint. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know the details of the properties, which are being cultivated by the parties. From his evidence, it appears that he has no special means of knowledge, as he does not know the relationship of the parties as well as the landed properties, and, as such he is not a competent witness to say that though the parties were separate in mess, but the landed properties remained joint. P. W.2 is Ram sanehi Mahto. He has also stated that the parties were separate in mess, but the landed properties remained joint. He has stated that fakir Mahto died in the year, 1933, and after the~death of Lakhan Mahto, they were separated. He has further stated that both the parties were dealing with the properties separately and they were living separately. He has stated that he has no knowledge with regard to the details of the properties which are dealt with separately by the parties. Thus, this witness has also not supported the case of the plaintiffs. P. W.3, Deo Sharan Mahto, is the, son of plaintiff No.1. He has stated that he is residing in one part of the separated house. He has further stated that the parties are separate i. e. the defendants are separate since last 15-16 years. He has further stated that ram Prasad is his uncle, who is living separately from his father since last 15-16 years. He has also stated that rent for the lands situated in Village Basantpur is paid half and half for the parties. P. W.3 is the son of the plaintiff No.1, as has been stated above, but he has not been made a party in the suit. The evidence of this witness does not support the case of the plaintiffs on the question of partition. On the contrary, the evidence of this witness supports the case of the defendants so far as the partition is concerned. The evidence of this witness does not support the case of the plaintiffs on the question of partition. On the contrary, the evidence of this witness supports the case of the defendants so far as the partition is concerned. He has stated in his evidence that the plaintiff No.1 as well as the co-plaintiff are living separately in divided half portion of the house. Similarly, p. W.4 is Mangal Singh. He has stated in his evidence that he is not related to the family of mangal Mahto nor does he know the details of the lands of the parties. Thus, he is a formal witness and has no knowledge of partition in the family. P. W.5 is Anupi Devi, defendant no.3, alleged to be the daughter of Lakhan mahto. She has stated in her cross-examination that the land of Basantpur was decided in between Ram Prasad and Ramrup. She has further stated that half of the land was in possession of Ramrup and half was in possession of Ram Prasad. She has further stated that Lakhan died sixty years ago, when she was aged 4-5 years. Wife of Lakhan predeceased him 15 years ago. She has also stated that she knows nothing about the relationship of the parties. She has stated that she is the daughter of Lakhan Mahto and they were joint till the death of her father, Lakhan mahto. She has further stated that after the death of Lakhan Mahto, usufruct of the lands used to be divided. She has stated that when lakhan Mahto died, she was only 4-5 years old. According to this witness, parties were dealing with the properties separately. She has no knowledge regarding the relationship of the parties. She has stated that she had once gone to the Village Jagdishpur in her childhood alongwith Sheo Shankar. Therefore, the evidence of this witness goes contrary to the case of the plaintiff and this further clearly shows that she is the daughter of Sheo Shankar and not Lakhan, as stated by the plaintiffs. P. W.6 is Shital Bhagat. He has stated in his evidence that the rents of the lands are being paid separately. He has stated that he has neither seen the cultivation done by the parties nor he knew the details including the boundaries of the lands. Thus, he is a formal witness. P. W.7 is Mahajan Bhagat. P. W.6 is Shital Bhagat. He has stated in his evidence that the rents of the lands are being paid separately. He has stated that he has neither seen the cultivation done by the parties nor he knew the details including the boundaries of the lands. Thus, he is a formal witness. P. W.7 is Mahajan Bhagat. He has stated that he is neither connected with the family of the plaintiffs nor does he know anything about partition of the lands. Thus, he is also a formal witness. P. Ws.8- 9 and 10 are the formal witnesses. P. W.9 is the resident of Village Jagdishpur, who has stated that the rents are being paid by the defendants. P. W.11 is Ramrup Mahto, who is plaintiff No.1 and brother of plaintiff No.2. He has stated that he often goes to Jagdishpur for the purpose of cultivating the lands, which is against the pleadings, inasmuch as, it is not the case of plaintiff No.1 that he himself cultivates the lands. On the contrary, his case is that he goes to Jagdishpur for taking the share in the usufruct of the lands. Having perused the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses in detail, I am of the view that none of. the plaintiffs witnesses has supported the case of the plaintiffs and the Court below has rightly rejected the evidence of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants have examined altogether 15 witnesses in support of their case, who have fully supported the case of the defendants inasmuch as their evidence amply goes to show that Anupi is not the daughter of Lakhan Mahto; rather she is the daughter of Sheo Shankar Mahto. In order to get 2/3rd share, including l/3rd share of anupi, the plaintiff has to prove firstly that lakhan died in State of separation from rest of his brothers and secondly, the defendant no.3 Anupi is the daughter of Lakhan Mahto. 7. In this case, the defendants have filed rent receipts marked Exts.2 series, which go to show that they have paid the rent of the lands of village Jagdishpur. Similarly, Ext. D. series are the sale-deeds, filed by the defendants in order to show that the lands of Village jagdishpur and Basantpur were being separately dealt with by the parties. 7. In this case, the defendants have filed rent receipts marked Exts.2 series, which go to show that they have paid the rent of the lands of village Jagdishpur. Similarly, Ext. D. series are the sale-deeds, filed by the defendants in order to show that the lands of Village jagdishpur and Basantpur were being separately dealt with by the parties. Different sale-deeds, which were filed by the defendants, have been considered by the Court below in details and, as such it is not necessary to consider the same in detail here again Ext. G series are the Chowkidari receipts which have been filed by the defendants to show that they are residing in Village Jagdishpur. The plaintiffs filed one sale-deed (Ext.1) executed by anupi Devi in favour of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Ext.2 series are the rent receipts. Ext.3 is a Zerpeshgi deed of 1938. Ext. .4 is the deed of gift dated 24.4.1997 executed by Gouri Mahto in favour of Manturna devi. The documents filed by the parties have been considered in detail by the Court below. The documents filed by the plaintiff do not support his case that the lands are joint and the Court has rightly disbelieved the same. The documents filed by the defendants, on the other hand, fully support their case. 8. Thus taking into consideration the entire evidence both oral and documentary, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have completely failed to prove firstly that Lakhan Mahto died in State of Separation from his brothers and secondly, Anupi is the daughter of Lakhan mahto and the findings arrived at by the Court below are based upon correct appraisal of the evidence available on the record, which do not require any interference by this Court. This appeal is dismissed, but no cost. Appeal dismissed.