JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-76 and 9-1-77 respectively, passed in T. S. No. 31/7 of 1971 /1976 filed by Sancharia Devi, plain-tiff respondent first party in the present appeal seeking partition of the suit property to the extent of her share in her father's property. After her death she has been substituted by her heirs as respondent Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (d) vide order dated 28-2-1996. The suit has been decreed and plaintiff has been given 1/3 share in her father's 1/2 share of the suit properties. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have filed the present appeal, in which defendant No. 1 has been added as respondent second party and defendant No.4 as respondent-third party. Defendant No.4 Sonawati Devi had also filed appeal bearing F. S. No. 302/77 against the impugned judgment and decree, in which learned Counsel for the appellant stated that he had no instruction to press the appeal and the said appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is with respect to the suit property of Komal Mahto. According to the plaintiff Komal Mahto died in the year 1963 leaving behind his son defendant No. 2 (appellant No.1 here in) Chamru Mahto alias Chamari Mahto and her mother Govati. Plaintiff claimed that she has been coming in possession of the suit property described in schedules I and II of the plaint along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and that there is unity of title and possession between them with respect to the properties described in the said schedules. 3. It is alleged that father-in-law of her brother defendant No.2 is causing trouble in the enjoyment of her share in the property and hence, the plaintiff made demand for partition and on refusal of the same, filed the present suit. Defendant No. 1 Govati Devi appeared and filed her separate written statement, in which she supported the case of the plaintiff. In the written statement she admitted that the plaintiff is her daughter and has been married to one Ram Chandra Mahto of village Sahara. P.S. Sarmera, District Nalanda and that defendant No. 2 is her son. Defendant No. 1 Govati Devi appeared and filed her separate written statement, in which she supported the case of the plaintiff. In the written statement she admitted that the plaintiff is her daughter and has been married to one Ram Chandra Mahto of village Sahara. P.S. Sarmera, District Nalanda and that defendant No. 2 is her son. She has alleged that her daughter-in-law (defendant No.3) created a deed of gift executed by her under influence of some persons mentioned therein in the garb of saving the property from being taken over by the Government. It is alleged that the said persons taking advantage of her illiteracy got the deed ascribed without reading or explaining the contents of the deed to her giving an impression that it was a deed of partition. 4. Defendant No. 2 also appeared and filed separate written statement and contested the suit. He denied the cause of action and unity of title or possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. He contended that the plaintiff is sister's son his mother (defendant No.1). He relied upon the deed of gift, executed by her mother in favour of his wife. It is alleged by him that his mother supported the case of the plaintiff in the written statement under influence of the plaintiff's husband. His further case is that actually Saraswati Devi, intervener defendant No. 4 is the only daughter of his father late Komal Mahto and he did not accept the correctness of the genealogical table given by the plaintiff in the plaint. 5. Defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement and contested the suit supporting the written statement filed by her husband in its entirety. The intervener defendant No.4 also filed separate written statement and contested the suit. She also has supported the written statement of defendant No. 2 in its entirety. She has asserted that she is the only daughter of late Komal Mahto. 6. It is not in dispute that Komal Mahto and his wife Govati had one son and one daughter out of whom Chamru Mahto was his son. The only dispute is with respect to the fact that whether Sancharia Devi or Saraswati Devi was daughter of late Kamal Mahto. 6. It is not in dispute that Komal Mahto and his wife Govati had one son and one daughter out of whom Chamru Mahto was his son. The only dispute is with respect to the fact that whether Sancharia Devi or Saraswati Devi was daughter of late Kamal Mahto. Both the parties led evidences and the Trial Court on consideration of the same has come to the finding that the plaintiff (Sancharia) is the daughter of Kamal Mahto and thus entitled for 1/3 share in her father's 1/2 share of the suit properties. 7. Mr. Ghose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the plaintiff's witnesses have not stated about their connection with the family of Komal Mahto nor they claimed that they are acquainted with the family of late Komal Mahto. He also contended that the plaintiff Sancharia in her evidence has shown complete lack of know ledge a bout filling of the suit. According to him, in fact, the suit was filed at the instance of the husband of Sancharia, who was interested in garbing the suit properties despite their being no relationship of Sancharia with the family of late Komal Mahto. It is contended that the plaintiff was not the daughter of late Komal Mahto and Govati. She was the daughter of Govati's sister and was brought by her Mousi, who nurtured her. It is thus, contended that she is not at all entitled for any share in the suit properties. According to him the approach of the Trial Court is completely misconceived and wrong, inasmuch as he has placed reliance upon the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses in complete violation of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principle in this regard enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Dolgobina Paricua v. Nimai Charan Mishra and other, reported in A.I.R. 1959 S. C. 914. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that in any view of the matter under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, a daughter, who files suit claiming her share is not entitled to get share in the residential house, which has also been erroneously given by the Trial Court. Mr. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that in any view of the matter under Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, a daughter, who files suit claiming her share is not entitled to get share in the residential house, which has also been erroneously given by the Trial Court. Mr. Naiyar Hussain, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no mention about the dwelling house in the entire written statements filed by the defendants, nor these have ever claimed the protection of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act. As such, Section 23 has no application at all to the facts bad circumstances of the present case. 9. In reply Mr. Ghose referred to the last item of schedule I of the plaint and submitted that the very entry made there in shows that the dwelling house is also in dispute in the suit. 10. I am unable to accept the said sub missions of Mr. Ghose. It is true that is the last item of scheduled it is mentioned 'Purab faraf Dia Makan' as against plot No 2723 but the learned Counsel has failed to refer to any such pleading in the written statement or evidence led therein. In such circumstances, I find it difficult to hold that Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act is attracted in the facts of the present case. 11. Mr. Ghose submitted that the Trial Court has committed error in coming to the conclusion that Sonawati cannot be the daughter of late Komal Mahto and that Sancharia, is the daughter of Late Komal Mahto and Govati who admittedly brought her up and got her married to Ramchandra Mahto Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to paras 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment and has contended that the Trial Court has completely misdirected himself in appreciating the evidence of those, who have not even claimed to be directly concerned or known to the family of Komal Mahto, nor they disclosed the source of knowledge about the facts stated by them, yet the Trial Court fully relied upon their evidence and erroneously ignored the evidence of defendants. He also referred to the evidence of the plaintiff and contended that from her own deposition it would appear that she is not even sure about the name of her mother. 12. He also referred to the evidence of the plaintiff and contended that from her own deposition it would appear that she is not even sure about the name of her mother. 12. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the statement of the plaintiff's witnesses as well as the defendant's witnesses and contended that there may be some discrepancy here and there in the oral evidences led by the parties, but the same was on account of the fact that the witnesses were either illiterate or of remote village. It is submitted that even those discrepancies have been corrected and explained by latter statement. Thus, merely because there is discrepancies in the evidences of the plaintiff's witnesses they cannot be completely discarded on that account. He further submitted that the Trial Court has considered each and every evidence in detail in its judgment and no infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants. As such the findings recorded by the Trial Court remain unassailed. 13. I find substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents. It is true that there is some discrepancies in the evidence of Some of the plaintiff's witnesses including the plaintiff's herself, but I find that subsequently those discrepancies have been removed and satisfactorily explained. The Trial Court has dealt with each and every evidence in detail and I do not wish to repeat the same in my judgment. However, after going through the discussions made by the Trial Court on the evidence led by the parties I do not find any infirmity in the above findings, nor learned counsel has referred to any such infirmity so as to affect the merit of consideration by the Trial Court. 14. I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Ghose also on the question that the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses lack the essential requirements or that ,their conduct has been such, which cannot prove the claim of the plaintiff. P.W.1 who is the man of same village and has got house by the side of the house of defendant No 2, has deposed that Komal Mahto died leaving behind only daughter, namely, Sancharia. I find that in the cross-examination he has specifically denied that the plaintiff is the daughter of Sundar Mahto of Girdharpur. P.W.1 who is the man of same village and has got house by the side of the house of defendant No 2, has deposed that Komal Mahto died leaving behind only daughter, namely, Sancharia. I find that in the cross-examination he has specifically denied that the plaintiff is the daughter of Sundar Mahto of Girdharpur. There cannot be infirmity in the same to discard his evidence Similarly PW. 2 also stated that he knows the members of the family of late Komal Mahto and PW. 4 admittedly is the husband of the plaintiff and he has supported the case of his wife PW. 6 is the plaintiff herself, who clearly stated in her evidence that she is the daughter of late Komal Mahto. It is true that initially she stated that she does not remember the name of her mother but later, she asserted that her name is Govati. She has denied that intervener defendant Sonavati is her sister as also that Sundar Mahto of Girdharpur is her father. She has asserted that defendant No. 2 is her brother. PW.7 who is from village Girdharpur has also clearly stated that late Sundar Mahto of his village had only one daughter who is married in a village Jubaina and denied that Sancharia is daughter of late Sundar Mahto of his village. The Trial Court has considered the evidence of defendant's witnesses also in para 8 of the judgment in detail, in which learned Counsel for the appellants has completely failed to point out any infirmity. 15. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, but without costs. Appeal dismissed.