JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Defendant No. 23 and Defendants 7 to 9 are the Appellants. From the undisputed genealogy, it appears that one Champati Das had three sons, namely Kalandi, Mali and Padan. Kalandi had two sons, namely Bholanath and Binod. Bholanath's wife Jema died in the year 1962. Rambha was the daughter of Bholanath. Defendant No. 2 was the son of Mali. He expired during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives have been impleaded as.defendants 24 to 29. Pandan had two sons, late Panchu and Gangadhar (defendant No. 5). Defendant No. 4 is the widow of Panchu and Defendant No. 3 is the son. There is no dispute regarding the above relationship. From the evidence on record, it has been found that Bholanath had two sisters, namely Ajodhya and Hara.. Defendants 6 and 23 are the sons of Ajodhya. Both of them claim in their separa written statement that Defendant No. 23 is-the adopted son of Binod. Ajodhya had two other sons who were not impleaded as parties in the trial court and an application for impleading them as parties has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 during the pendency of this appeal. Similarly, Hara had three sons who had not been impleaded as parties, but they have filed applications to be added as parties. Defendants 7 to 9 who are the sons of Defendant No. 23 are alienees from Binod in respect of certain properties. Defendant No. 16 has been jointly recorded with Bholanath in respect of 'Gha' Schedule property. The otherdefendants are the alienees from other parties. Plaintiff claims that she and Defendant No. 1 are the daughters of Rambha and they are entitled to succeed to the properties of Bholanath, who admittedly died in the year 1972. 2. It is the Plaintiff's case that Bholanath and Binod, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar became separated in the year 1942. 'Ka' Schedule lands are recorded in the name of Bholanath, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar. It is claimed that Binod had no interest in the said property and as such Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/3rd. interest in the aforesaid 'Ka' Schedule property. 'Kha' Schedule properties stand recorded in the names of Bholanath. Binod, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar. 'Ka' Schedule lands are recorded in the name of Bholanath, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar. It is claimed that Binod had no interest in the said property and as such Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/3rd. interest in the aforesaid 'Ka' Schedule property. 'Kha' Schedule properties stand recorded in the names of Bholanath. Binod, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar. It is claimed that the three branches had equal share in such properties and as such Plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to a share of 1112 in such property. It is claimed that 'Ga' ScheduIe property is the exclusive property of Bholanath and Binod and the 'other two branches did not have any interest In the same. The Plaintiff, therefore, claims that she and Defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/4share each in 'Ga' Schedule property. 'Gha' Schedule properties have been recorded in the name of Bholanath and Sashika (defendant. No. 16). It is claimed tbat the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 together are entitled to,balf interest in the said property. Lot No. 1 of Schedule 'Una' property had 'been purchased by Jema in 1945 out of her own funds and the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are entitled to succeed to sub property to the exclusion of others. Lot Nos. 2 to 7 of 'Una' Schedule property are claimed to be the self-acquired property of Bholanath and Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 claim the entire property. The alienations of Binod in favour of Defendants 7 to 9 have been challenged. On the aforesaid pleadings, suit for partition has been filed. 3. Defendant No. 2 expired during the pendency of the suit and his heirs Defendants 2 to 29, have been impleaded on the basis of their own petition. Defendants 3 to 5 and 24 to 29 filed a joint written statement.While not denying about the status of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 they have denied a bout the separation and claimed that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are not entitled to any share and all the properties purchased by Bholanath or Jema are the joint family properties. Defendants 3 to 5 and 24 to 29 filed a joint written statement.While not denying about the status of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 they have denied a bout the separation and claimed that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are not entitled to any share and all the properties purchased by Bholanath or Jema are the joint family properties. It is specifically stated that Lot No. 1 properties in 'Una' Schedule have been purchased in the name of Jema from the joint family nucleus of the family property and the other properties acquired in the name of Bholanath were acquired with the aid of joint family nucleus and were joint family properties. They have.not disputed the genealogy, but it is claimed that Rambha had expired before 1956 and as such the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 cannot succeed to the properties. Defendant No. 6 filed a separate written statement. He did not dispute the genealogy but claimed the properties of Bholanath on the basis of a Wil1 dated 9-6-1971. Admittedly his application for grant of probate had been dismissed. Defendants 17 to 19 are the alienees in respect of Lot No. 3 of 'Una' Schedule property under a sale deed (Ext. A) executed by Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. They claimed right over such property. Defendants 7 to 9 claim the properties on the basis of alienations by Binod. Defendant No. 23 filed a separate written statement wherein it is stated that the three branches had been separated in mess and property since 1940 and were in separate possession of various joint family properties. However, Bholanath and Binod representing the branch of Kalandi were in joint mess and property. Bholanath was the Karta of the said joint family. It is claimed that the properties purchased by Bholanath or Jema are the joint family properties having been Purchased by utilising the surplus from joint family nucleus. He has disputed the status of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. It is claimed that they are no daughters of Rambha, but the daughters of Ananta Nayak, the husband of Ramba, through his second wife Suma' Dei. It is further claimed by him that he is the adopted son of - Binod. It is claimed by Defendant No. 23 that Binod succeeded the properties of Bholahath and as such he claims right over the properties of Binod. 4. The trial court found that. It is further claimed by him that he is the adopted son of - Binod. It is claimed by Defendant No. 23 that Binod succeeded the properties of Bholahath and as such he claims right over the properties of Binod. 4. The trial court found that. Ahaha (the Plaintiff) and Defendant No. 1 are the daughters of Rambha and Defendant No. 23 is not the adopted son of Binod and Lot No. 1 of'Una' Schedule property was the self-acquired property of Jema. The alienations in favour of Defendants 7 to 9 made by Binod were not upheld. 5. The learned cQunsel for the Appellants has contended that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are not the daughters of Rambha and as such they have no right to sue for partition in respect of the properties of Bholanath. It is also contended that even assuming that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are the daughters of Rambha, the Appellants are entitled to the share of Binod in the suit schedule properties all of which should be taken to be the joint family properties of at least Bholanath and Binod. It is further contended that in case the claim of Appellant No. 1 (defendant No. 23) being the adopted son of Binod is negatived, the suit for partition should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary patties, as the Plaintiff has not impleaded the three sons of Hara and two other sons of Ajodhya who being the nearest heirs of Binod along with Defendant "N. 6 and Defendant No. 23, would have succeeded to the share of Binod in case adoption of Defendant No. 23 fails. It is further contended that in any view of the matter, the alienations made by Binod in favour of Defendants 17 to 19 should be taken to be valid and binding. 6. The main question in this appeal relates to relationship of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 with Rambha. Though some dispute had been raised by Defendants 3to5 and 24 to 26 relating to date of death of Rambha, such question is immaterial.If it is ultimately found that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are the daughters of Rambha, irrespective of the date of death of Rambha, they would succeed to the properties left behind by Bholanath being his Class-I heirs. The trial court has referred to the oral evidence and documentary evidence on record to come to a conclusion that Ahalya and Padma were the daughters of Rambha. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the oral evidence on record does not satisfy the requirement of Section 50 of the Evidence Act, as the opinion of the witnesses relationship between Ahalya-Padma and Rambha is not expressed by conduct. The learned Counsel for the" Appellant has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. 1. Rule 1959 Supreme Court 914 (Dolgobinda Paricha v. Nimai Charan Misra and Ors. as well as the subsequent decisions of' this Court reported in 33 (1967) C. L, T. 740 (Ulla Dei v. Malli Bewa dl Ors.) and 38 (1972) C.L. T. 44 (Balaram Das and Anr. v. Jayakrishna Das and Ors., in support of such contention. 7. There is no dispute with the principles of law laid down in those decisions.. As a matter of fact, judged in the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, most of the oral evidence on record adduced on behalf of the Plaintiff as well as the contesting Defendant No. 23 fall short of the requirement of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. However in my opinion even after discarding the oral evidence of such witnesses, there is enough material on record including documentary evidence to sustain the finding of the trial regaroing the reletionship of Ahalya and Padma with Rambha. 8. P. w. 1 is the Plaintiff) herself. She claims that she and Padma are the daughters of Rarnbha. It is not disputed that Ahalya and Padma are the daughters of Ananta who was admittedly the husband of Rambha. It is also no disputed that Ananta v. Smt. Ahalya Del married for the second time even during the lifetime of Rambha. It is also not disputed that p. w. 4 (Suma),is the second wife of Ananta. According to the case of the Plaintiff, she is the daughter of Ananta through first wife Rambha. Such case of the Plaintiff has been accepted by the other Defendants such as Defendant No. 6, Defendants 3 to 5 and Defendants 24 to" 26. However, Defendant No. 23 claims that Ahalya and Padma are not the daughters of Rambha, but they are the daughters of Suma, the second wife of Ananta. Such case of the Plaintiff has been accepted by the other Defendants such as Defendant No. 6, Defendants 3 to 5 and Defendants 24 to" 26. However, Defendant No. 23 claims that Ahalya and Padma are not the daughters of Rambha, but they are the daughters of Suma, the second wife of Ananta. Suma herself has been examined as p w. 4 and she categorically stated that by the time of her marriage with Ananta, Ahalya and Padma were aged about 9 years and 6 years. Such evidence disproves the case of Defendant No. 23 that Ahalya and Padma are the daughters of Suma and not of Rambha. The evidence of p. w 4 is being criticized on the ground that she herself is the mother of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and as such she is to gain if Ahalya and Padma succeeded to the property left by Bholanath. In this context, it is also contended by the Appellants that Ananta, admittedly the father of Plaintiff and Defendant No L having not been examined, adverse inference should have been drawn. The evidence of p. w. 4 indicates that Ananta was old and ailing and was not in a position to give evidence. If the oral evidence of Plaintiff herself and Suma (p. w. 4) would have been the only evidence on record, possibly it would have been difficult to come to a conclusion about the relationship of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 vis-a-vis Rambha. However, such oral evidence of Plaintiff and p. w 4 has received a ample corroboration from certain other facts and circumstances and documentary evidence which cannot be ignored. 9. It is not disputed that Defendant No. 6 who is otherwise the own brother of Defendant No. 23, had filed a probate case claiming the properties of Bholanath on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by Bholanath. In such probate proceeding, he had impleaded Ahalya and Padma as the daughters of Rambha. As a matter of fact, in Ext. I, the judgment, there is a finding that Ahalya and Padma were the daughters of Rambha. Defendant No. 23 was not a party to such [ 1999 Sanatan Das vs.. In such probate proceeding, he had impleaded Ahalya and Padma as the daughters of Rambha. As a matter of fact, in Ext. I, the judgment, there is a finding that Ahalya and Padma were the daughters of Rambha. Defendant No. 23 was not a party to such [ 1999 Sanatan Das vs.. Smt. Ahalya Dei probate proceeding, However, since Defendant No. 23 is claiming to be the adopted son of Binod, in the absence of any 'other heir of Bholanath, Defendant No. 23 would have succeeded to the property of Bholanatbh being the nearest legal representative in case the will in favour of Defendant No. 6 failed and the relationship of Ahalya and.Padma with Bholanath was not accepted. In other words, the probate proceeding initiated by Defendant No. 6 claiming the properties of Bholanath could have been resisted by Defendant No. 23 by appearing in the said probate proceeding pursuant to the general citation. The very fact that Defendant No. 23 remained silent at that time is indicative of the fact that he was not claiming to be the nearest heir of Bholanath obviously because other nearer relations were present. 10. It may be further stated that in the present suit, Defendant No. 6 in.his written statement had categorically admitted that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were the daughters of Rambha. Similarly, Defendants 3 to 5 and 24 to 26 have also not disputed the relationship of Ahalya and Padma with Rambha. Apart from the above, though Defendant No. 6 has not been examined in the present case, he being a party in the present suit, his previous statement (Ext. 10) made in the earlier probate proceeding can be considered to be an admission and as such a substantive piece of evidence, keeping in view the principle of law decided in the decision reported in A. 1. Rule 1966 Supreme Court 405 (Bharat Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Bhagirathi). Similarly, present Defendant No. 24 had been examined as a witness and admitted that the present Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are the daughters of Rambha. He had made similar statement in the probate proceeding. Such previous statement.(Ext. 12) of defendant No. 24 is also admissible:.The observation made in the' probate proceeding regarding the relationship also can be said to be admissible u/s 13 of the Evidence Act.. 11. Apart from the above materials, Ext. 8, the Record-of. He had made similar statement in the probate proceeding. Such previous statement.(Ext. 12) of defendant No. 24 is also admissible:.The observation made in the' probate proceeding regarding the relationship also can be said to be admissible u/s 13 of the Evidence Act.. 11. Apart from the above materials, Ext. 8, the Record-of. Rights, indicates that Bholanath and present Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 were recorded as owners in respect of properties left by Jema, wife of Bholanath. It should be recapitulated that lema died in 1962 and certain properties had been purchased in her name. (the question as to whether, those properties were her properties or the joint family properties, is a separate question to dealt with later on). After death of Jema, apart from Bholanath, Ahalya and Padma were also recorded obviously on the footing that they being the daughters of pre-deceased daughter Rambha were entitled to succeed to die property of Jema. Though such Record-of-Rights may not create or extinguish title the entries in the Record-of-Rights raise a presumption relating to the relationship. 12. As against such materials existing, apart from the bald denial of Defendant No. 23 in his written statement as well as evidence there is no other contrary material. For the aforesaid reasons, I confirm the finding of the trial court to the effect that Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are the daughters of Rambha and are entitled to succeed to the properties of Bholanath and Jema. 13. From the evidence on record. it appears that Bholanath and Binod had two sisters Hara and Ajodhya. Defendant No. 6 is admittedly the son of Ajodhya. Though initially in the written statement, Defendant No. 23 claimed otherwise, it is now admitted that he is also the son o? Ajodhya, who had two other sons who have not been impleaded in the suit. Similarly, it is no longer in dispute that Hara had three sons who had not been impleaded as parties: to the suit. In the above background, it is contended by counsel.for the Appellants that the suit for partition is not maintainable in the absence of the aforesaid persons. This question is inter-linked with the question of adoption of Defendant No. 23. If he is found to be adopted son of Binod, the question of nonjoinder of necessary parties would recede into background.. 14.. Defendant No. 23 himself claims to be the adopted son of Binod. This question is inter-linked with the question of adoption of Defendant No. 23. If he is found to be adopted son of Binod, the question of nonjoinder of necessary parties would recede into background.. 14.. Defendant No. 23 himself claims to be the adopted son of Binod. His such claim has not been challenged by persons who would have otherwise succeeded to the properties of Binod. Defendant No. 6 has specifically taken the plea that Defendant No. 23 was the adopted son of Binod.During pendency of the appeal, an application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff to implead the two sons of Ajodhya who have been left out. Similarly, the three sons of Hara hlve themselves filed application purporting to be under Order 1, Rule 10. c.P.C., to be impleaded in the appeal and in the said petition, they have stated that they do not challenge the claim of the Plaintiff. Though notice of the petition for impletion has been issued to the two sons of Ajodbya and they have appeared through Advocate, no independent claim has been made by such persons claiming any indepedent right in the property. As a matter of fact, Gangadhar pradhan the son of Hara, had been examined as a witness on behalf of Defendant No. 23 and had stated that.defendant No. 23 was the adopted son of Billod. Similarly, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the two sons of Ajodhya, now sought to be impleaded as parties, it has been stated that Defendant No. 23 was the adopted son of Binod. In the aforesaid back-ground, since Defendant No. 23 is considered to be the adopted son of Binod by all persons who would have otherwise benefited, it must be taken that Defendant No. 23 was the adopted son of Binod. As a matter of fact, various documents filed by Defendant No. 23 indicate that he had been described as the adopted son of Binod right from 1960 onwards when there was no dispute relating to such relationship. The trial court negatived the plea of adoption of Defendant No. 23 on the ground that there were certain discrepancies in the document executed in the year 1973, Even bereft of the said document, other materials on record, particularly documentary evidence on record, clearly ind ieated that Defendant No. 23 was the adopted son of Binod. The trial court negatived the plea of adoption of Defendant No. 23 on the ground that there were certain discrepancies in the document executed in the year 1973, Even bereft of the said document, other materials on record, particularly documentary evidence on record, clearly ind ieated that Defendant No. 23 was the adopted son of Binod. The adoption appears to be an old and ancient adoption. Other witnesses to giving and taking are not available. Defendant No. 6, the elder brother of Defendant No. 23, has admitted in his' Jwritten s&iitement that Defendant No. 23 was the adopted son of Binod. Though Plaintiff had denied the status of Defendant No. 23 as the adopted son of Binod in evidence,such denial is immaterial as the Plaintiff has no interest in the property left by Binod as such property would otherwIse go to Defendant No. 23 along with other sons Ajodhya and Hara in case Defendant No. 23 is not found to be the adopted son of Binod. Since the persons interested to claim rigbt in the property of Binod are not disputing the status of Defendant No. 23. there is hardly any occasion to come to a different conclusion.. 15. It is, of course, true that the trial court had also indicated that Defendant No. 3 being the sister's son of Binod could not have been validly adopted by Binod. Even though adoption of a sister's son was not permitted under the orthodox Hindu Law, such adoption could take place if there was a custom to the contrary. The very fact that the adoption of Defendant No. 23 is not being challenged by other persons who would have derived benefit. itself is prima facie indicative of existence of such a custom, may be. in the locality. As a matter of fact, the evidence on record also indicates that Defendant No. 23 was in possession of properties left behind by Binod. Once it is held that Defendant No. 23 is the adopted son of Binod. the question of the suit being hit by the principles of non-jbinder of necessary parties due to absence of other sons of Ajodhya and Hara recedes into back-grmnd. Moreover, as already indicated. those persons are not claiming any independent right even though they have appeared in th is Court through counsel. 16. The next question is as to the rights of the parties in various disputed properties. Moreover, as already indicated. those persons are not claiming any independent right even though they have appeared in th is Court through counsel. 16. The next question is as to the rights of the parties in various disputed properties. It is to be noticed that 'Ka' Schedule property had been recorded in the names of Bholanath. Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar. Maguni represented the branch of Mali and Panchu and 'Gangadhar rEpresented the branch of Padan; Though the Plaintiff claims that Binod did not have any right in 'Ka' Scheduled properties, it is obvious that such 'Ka' Schedule property was, in fact, joint family property of three branches. Otherwise, there is no explanation as to why the names of Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar would have been recorded along WIth the name of Bholanath. Therefore, 'Ka' Schedule property should be taken to be the joint family property wherein the three branches had 1/3rd interest each. The 1/3rd share of Kalandj's branch is to be divided among the heirs of.Bholanath and Binod and similarly, the 1/3rd. share of Maguni is to be divided among Defendants 24 to 29. Defendants 3 and 4 representing the branch of Panchu and the legal representatives of Defendant No. 5, who expired during pendency of the suit are entitled to the 1/3rd share of Padan in 'Ka' Schedule property. Thus the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/12th share each in 'Ka' Schedule and not 1/6th. as decided by the trial court. The Defendant No. 23 is entitled to 1/6th. share in such property. In respect of`Kha `schedule,property all the branches have been included including Binod and as such there is no dispute. It is clarified that Defendant No. 23 is entitled to 1/6th share in such property.The alienations in respect of 'Ka' and 'Kha' Schedules can be upheld within the limit of the share of the alienor. 17. 'Ga' Schedule property has been recorded 'in the names of Bholanath and Binod. The trial court has granted 1/4th. share to the Plaintiff. The other Defendants such as Defendants 24 to 26 and Defendants 3, 4 and 5 had claimed that 'Ga' Schedule property should be taken to be the joint family property of all the three main branches. However, they have not challenged the decree of the trial court and as such, the question need not be re-examined. share to the Plaintiff. The other Defendants such as Defendants 24 to 26 and Defendants 3, 4 and 5 had claimed that 'Ga' Schedule property should be taken to be the joint family property of all the three main branches. However, they have not challenged the decree of the trial court and as such, the question need not be re-examined. That apart, there is no material on record to indicate that. in fact, 'Ga' Schedule property had been acquired by Bholanath and Binod from out of the joint family nucleus belonging to all the three branches of Kalandi. Mali and Padan. Such property can be divided among Plaintiff,defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 23 and the alienation of such property can be upheld to the extent of the share of alienor. 18. 'Gha'Schedule property has been recorded in the names of Defendant No. 16 and Bholanath. The said property had been purchased in the name of Bholanath from a co-sharer of present Defendant No. 16 and as such Defendant No. 16 and Bholanath have been recorded. Plaintiff claims that she and Defendant No: 1 are together entitled to half share in the said property and the balancehaH is to be allotted to Defendant No. 16. Defendant No. 23, however, c1aims that the said purchase should be considered to be joint family property of Bholanath and Binod, as by 1947, Bholanath and Binod were not separated and Bh )]anath being the Kana, the acquisition in his name should be taken to be for the joint family consisting of Bholanath and Bihod, in the absence of any evidence relating to separate income of Bholanath. Similary, it was contended in the trial court by the Defendants belonging to the branches of Mali and Padan that the said property should be considered to be the joint family property of all the three branches as the same had been purchased in the name of Bholanath, the Karta.Law is well settled that when a property is purchased from out of the joint family nucleus in the name of a member of the coparcenary, such property should be treated to be the joint family property. Law is further well settled that where property purchased in the name of Karta, and there is no proof relating to independent source of income of Karta, the property can be taken to be joint family property even though joint family nucleus is not estabhshed. In the present case, there is no evidence relating to any joint family surplus though there is evidence relating to existence of joint family property. Mere existence of joint family property does not raise any presumption that there must be surplus from out of the joint family property. A person assertmg that a particular property has been purchased out of joint family surplus bas to prove such a case. In the present case, as already indicated, though there was existence of joint famIly property, there is no material on record to indicate about alleged surplus, if any. However, the material evidence on record including the statement of Defendant No. 23 himself indicates that Bholanath had certain shops. As such, it is not a case where there was no independent income of Bholanath. In the absence of any evidence relating to joint farnily surplus, and in view of the evidence on record relating to indepenqent income of Bholanath, no presumption can be raised that the property acquired in the name of Bholanath, who was the Karta, must have been acquired out of the joint family property. The contention of the Appellants on this score, therefore, cannot be accepted. 19. The contesting Defendant No. 23 as well as other Defendants such as Defendants 24 to 26 and Defendants 3 to 5 had also contended that 'Una' Schedule property should be considered to be the joint family property. Lot No. I of 'Una' Schedule had bean purchased in the name of Jema, the wife of Bholanath. Since the property was purchased in the name of a female member of the family, no presumption can be raised that the same must, have been purchased out of the joirit family property unless it is specifically proved that the joint family income had been utilised for the purpose of such property in the name of a female member. On this aspect, there is singular lack of acceptable evidence on record. As such, Lot No. I should be taken to be the property of Jema. On this aspect, there is singular lack of acceptable evidence on record. As such, Lot No. I should be taken to be the property of Jema. On her death, the said pfoperty was inherited by her heirs,that is to say, Bholanath and grand children Ahalya and Padma (plaintiff and Defendant No. 1) and recorded as such in the Recordof-Rights. Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are thus entitled to 1/2 share each in such property. 20. The other properties in 'Una' Schedule are alleged to have been acquired by Bholanath. As already indicated, there is no evidence relating to any joint family surplus and there is some material on record relating to independent income of Bholanath. As such, in the absence of any categorical evidence relating to utilisation of joint famiiy income for purchase of such property, the apparent must be taken to be real and the properties which were recorded in the name of Bholanath in other Lots of 'Una' Schedule should be taken to be the properties of Bholanath. Other persons did not have any share in such properties. The joint alienations by Plaintiff and defennant No. 1 are upheld. The rest of the property in 'Una' Schedule is to be partitioned between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I dispose of the appeal with the following directions: (a) Properties described in 'Ka' and 'Kha' Schedules are the joint family properties of three branches of Kalandi, Mali and Pandan, each having 1/3rd share therein. In such 1/3rd share of property, Bholanath had 1/2 interest and Binod had, 1/2 interest. Thus, 1/6th interest of Bhalanath in 'Ka' and 'Kha' Schedule properties is to be diyided between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. In other words. Plaintiff and defe'ndant No. 1 are each entitled to 1/12th. share. whereas Defendant No. 23 is entitled to 1/6th. share in such 'Ka' and 'Kha' Schedule properties and the branches of Mali and Padan have each 1/3rd share which is accordingly to be divided among other Defendants representing the branches of Mali and Padan.. (b) 'Ga' Schedule property should be considered to be the property of Bholanath and Binod and Defendants representing the branches of Mali and Padan have no interest in such property. Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are each entitled to 1/4th. share in such property and Defendant No. 23 is entitled to balance 1/2 share. (b) 'Ga' Schedule property should be considered to be the property of Bholanath and Binod and Defendants representing the branches of Mali and Padan have no interest in such property. Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are each entitled to 1/4th. share in such property and Defendant No. 23 is entitled to balance 1/2 share. (c) The Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are entitled to half share in 'Gha' Schedule property and Defendant No, 16 is entitled to the other half and other members of the erstwhile joint family includmg Defendant No. 23 do not have a share in such property. (d) The properties descnbed in Lot No. I of 'Una' Schedule should be considered to be the properties of Jema and the other properties described in 'Una' Schedule should be considered to be the properties of Bholanath and Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 have 1/2 share each in such properties. (e) At the time of partition, the possession of parties should be respected as far as practicable and properties alienated should be adjusted within the share of such alienor as far as practicable. 22. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The decree of the trial court is modified to the extent in.dicated. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Appeal partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed