P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) - Plaintiffs are the appellants against a reversing decision in a suit for partition. ( 2 ) BRUNDABAN Biswal and Sadhu Biswal are admittedly two brothers. Defendants 5 and 6 are the sons of Brundaban. There is no dispute that Sadhu had a son named Budhu who is dead and defendants 1 to 4 are the heirs of late Budhu. Plaintiffs claim that plaintiff No. 2 mandodari is the widow of Sadhu and plaintiff no. 1 Panu is their son. Defendant No. 7 Suka is admittedly daughter of Sadhu. According to the plaintiffs case, 'a' and 'b' Schedule properties were the ancestral properties of brundaban and Sadhu, whereas 'c and 'd' schedule properties are the joint family properties belonging to the branch of Sadhu alone: plaintiffs claim l/6th share each in respect of 'a' and 'b' Schedule properties and l/3rd share each in respect of 'c" and 'd' Schedule properties. ( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 5 and 6 remained ex parte. Defendants 1 to 4 and 7 filed joint written statement. According to their case, Budhu is the son of Sadhu through Nadia. It is further claimed by them that Mandodari (plaintiff. No. 2) was not the legally married wife of Sadhu, but was the kept of Sadhu and Panu' (plaintiff no. 1) is the son of Sadhu through Mandodari. According to their case, 'c' Schedule property was inherited by Nadia from her father and on her death, the property devolved upon her son Budhu, but since Budhu was a minor and Sadhu was looking after the properties, the said 'c' Schedule properties were wrongly recorded in the name of Sadhu in the Settlement Record-of-Rights. It is further claimed that after death' of Sadhu, Budhu acquired D' schedule properties. It is further claimed that in the year 1962, after the death of Sadhu, an amicable settlement was brought about by the villagers between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 to 4 and 7 on the other, !n the sajd amicable settlement, half share of sadhu in 'a' and 'b' Schedule properties was given to the plaintiffs and they were also given ac. 1,00 out of plot No. 874 in 'c' Schedule and Ac. 0:02 decimals of homestead out of the said 'c' Schedule properties. The remaining lands in 'c' Schedule and the entire property in 'd' Schedule remained with Budhu. 1,00 out of plot No. 874 in 'c' Schedule and Ac. 0:02 decimals of homestead out of the said 'c' Schedule properties. The remaining lands in 'c' Schedule and the entire property in 'd' Schedule remained with Budhu. In view of such family settlement which has been acted upon, the suit for partition is not maintainable. It is further claimed by them in the written statement that the properties given to the plaintiffs in 'a' and 'b' Schedule properties had been transferred by them to defendants 5 and 6. ( 4 ) THE trial court found that 'd' Schedule property was the self-acquired property of late budhu, but 'c' Schedule property was the property of Sadhu. It was further found that nadia was the first wife and Mandodari (plaintiff No. 2) was the second wife of Sadhu and there was no partition between late Sadhu and his brother, nor there was any family settlement. Accordingly, the trial court passed a decree for partition holding that plaintiffs are entitled to l/6th, share each in 'a' and 'b' schedule properties and l/3rd share in 'c' schedule properties. ( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid decree, appeal was filed bydefendants 1 to 4 and 7. The lower appellate court found that plaintiff No. 2 mandodari was not the legally married wife of sadhu and as such Panu being the illegitimate son was not entitled to any share. The appellate court also confirmed the finding of the trial court to the effect that 'c Schedule property was the property of Sadhu and not of nadia, as claimed by defendants 1 to 4 and 7 the lower appellate court discarded the family settlement. Though it was found that 'a', 'b' and 'c' Schedule properties had not been partitioned, the suit was dismissed, as according to the lower appellate court, the plaintiffs did not have any share in any of these properties. ( 6 ) IN the present appeal, it is contended that in view of the documentary evidence on record including Ext. A, the Ranch Faisala, the findings of the lower appellate court that plaintiff No. 2 was not the widow of Sadhu and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share, are perverse and liable to be set aside. Ext. A purports to be a Panchayat Faisala dated 28. 8. 1962. A, the Ranch Faisala, the findings of the lower appellate court that plaintiff No. 2 was not the widow of Sadhu and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share, are perverse and liable to be set aside. Ext. A purports to be a Panchayat Faisala dated 28. 8. 1962. The said document has been relied upon by the defendants themselves to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that previously there was an amicable family settlement. Though the trial court relied upon the said document to come to a conclusion that plaintiff No. 2 was the widow of Sadhu, it did not give effect to the document in its entirety while directing partition. The lower appellate court has discarded the said document on the ground that signature of Budhu on the said document had not been proved. The lower appellate court appears to have misdirected itself on this score. Law is well settled that when a document is filed and relied upon by a party in support of his own case and admitted into evidence at his instance, he cannot turn back and challenge the admissibility or genuineness of the very same document at a later stage of the trial or in appeal. The document itself was filed and relied upon by the contesting defendants and market without objections. Signature of plaintiff No. 1 had been proved as Ext. A/ 1. In view of the fact that the document had been filed and proved by the defendants themselves in support of their case that there was a previous family settlement, it was not open to the defendants to challenge the admissibility or genuineness of the document subsequently at the appellate stage. ( 7 ) IN the aforesaid document, there is recital that Budhu Biswal was willing to maintain his father's second wife Mandodari Bewa. It contained further recital that Panu Biswal, the natural born son of Mandodari was also willing to maintain his mother. These recitals had been rightly relied upon by the trial court to come to a conclusion that plaintiff No. 2 was, indeed, the second wife of Sadhu Biswal. Defendants had admitted that plaintiff No. 2 was the kept of late Sadhu Biswal and plaintiff No. 1 Panu Biswal was the son of Sadhu Biswal through Mandodari. The alleged marriage admittedly had taken place long back. Defendants had admitted that plaintiff No. 2 was the kept of late Sadhu Biswal and plaintiff No. 1 Panu Biswal was the son of Sadhu Biswal through Mandodari. The alleged marriage admittedly had taken place long back. Law always presumes in favour of marriage rather than concubinage. Having regard to the undisputed fact that Mandodari and Sadhu Biswal lived for a long time as husband and wife and the further fact that in the Panchayat Faisala, she had been accepted by all concerned as the second wife of Sadhu Biswal, the finding of the lower appellate court to the contrary cannot be held to be valid and it must be concluded that Mandodari was the second wife of sadhu Biswal. Therefore, the finding of the lower appellate court on this score though apparently a finding of fact cannot be sustained as the said finding was vitiated by non-consideration of vital documentary evidence and by non-application of correct principle of law. ( 8 ) THE next question is as to whether the trial court's decree for partition should be restored in view of the finding recorded above. In the present appeal, as well as before the lower appellate court, the plaintiff appellants have relied upon Ext. A to press their contention regarding the status of plaintiff No. 2. The said document (Ext. A) evidencing the panchayat Faisala recites that the share of sadhu Biswal in village Pipalbahal (Angul) was allotted to Panu Biswal. Besides, Panu Biswal was to get Ac. 1. 00 from Saladarha Chaka of pitabaligoruda and Ac. 0. 02 decimals of homestead land in the aforesaid village. It is not disputed at the Bar that Saladarha Chaka appertains to plot No. 874 in 'c' Schedule. In the said Panchayat Faisala, it is further recited that budhu Biswal, the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting defendants was to get the balance lands from Pitabaligoruda. Ext. B is a subsequent document executed by plaintiff No. 1 wherein he has acknowledged and accepted the family arrangement evidenced by Ext. A. In view of Exts. A and B, it is apparent that a family settlement had already been effected and as such, there is no necessity, nor justification for reopening the family settlement which had taken place as long back as in August, 1962. A. In view of Exts. A and B, it is apparent that a family settlement had already been effected and as such, there is no necessity, nor justification for reopening the family settlement which had taken place as long back as in August, 1962. In view of such family settlement, it is not necessary to pass any decree for partition in the manner done by the trial court. On the other hand, it is clarified that the plaintiffs are entitled to get the half share of Sadhu Biswal 'a' and 'b' Schedule properties situate in village pipalbahal (Angul) and they are further entitled to Ac. 1. 00 out of plot No. 874 and Ac. 0. 02 decimals of Gharbari land in village pitabalgoruda as per the Panchayat Faisala evidencing family settlement (Ext. A ). The other half in 'a and 'b' Schedule is to be allotted to defendants 5 and 6. The Second Appeal allowed to the extent indicated and subject to the direction made above. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed accordingly. .