Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1989 in Title Suit No. 76 of 1986 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd, Saraikela, by which the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit. 2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal as pleaded by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendants are descendants of a common ancestor namely Manbodh Mahato who was settled raiyat of village Khudilong and the suit lands belonged to Manbodh Mahato who died long before last revisional survey of 1964 leaving behind four sons, namely, Rathu Mahato, Lakhan Mahato, Kandra Mahato and Suku Mahato. All the four sons of Manbodh Mahato died leaving behind their sons and daughters. Rupchand Mahato, son of Lakhan Mahato is the plaintiff No. 1 whereas plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are sons of Suku Mahato and plaintiff No. 5 is the widow of Suku Mahato. Sarla Devi is the daughter of Lakhan Mahato. The defendant No. 6, Bhusru Mahato is the son of Kandra Mahato, while pro forma defendant No. 2, Babi Mahatain is the daughter of Kandra. The plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are sons of Suku Mahato whereas Jira Mahatain is the widow of Suku Mahato, Rathu Mahato, who died long before 1964 survey was survived by three sons namely Bhadari, Baneshwar and Maheshwar Mahato and all of them are dead. The defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of Bhadri Mahto. The defendant No. 5 Dilip Mahato is the son of Baneshwar Mahato whereas defendant No. 7 Nunibala Mahtain is the daughter of Maheshwar. The parties are the members of Hindu coparcenary governed by the Mitakshara School of Law. The lands described in Schedule A was recorded under Khata No. 17 of village Shayam Nagar and these lands were mortgaged by his eldest son Rathu Mahato by registered mortgage deed dated 17-5-1909 and the said land was recorded in the name of Rathu Mahto. But, the said lands are joint family property. Manbodh Mahato had purchased some lands in Mouza Khudilong along with some strangers namely Lalu Mahato and Gobinda Mahato and in the land so purchased Manbodh had half share while the remaining half share belonged to Gobinda Mahato and Lalu Mahato, and the said lands were recorded in khata No. 25 of the Cadastral survey of 1907. Manbodh Mahato had purchased some lands in Mouza Khudilong along with some strangers namely Lalu Mahato and Gobinda Mahato and in the land so purchased Manbodh had half share while the remaining half share belonged to Gobinda Mahato and Lalu Mahato, and the said lands were recorded in khata No. 25 of the Cadastral survey of 1907. Manbodh, Gobinda and Lalu Mahato were all dead and the lands were recorded in revisional survey under khata No. 104 in Mouza Khudilong in the name of Lakhan and Suku Mahato, sons of Manbodh Mahato, Bhusru Mahato, son of Kandra Mahato, Gobinda Mahato, Nandlal Mahato, Bidhu Bhushan Mahato and Phul Chand Mahato, all sons of Bhadari Mahato, Dilip Mahato, son of Baneshwar Mahato, Maheshwar Mahto, son of Rathu Mahato and the heirs of Lalu Mahato and Gobinda Mahato, the co-sharer purchasers. The specification of the shares given in the said Khatian of respective co-owners is wrong, The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are the descendants of Bhadari Mahato while the defendant No. 5 is the descendant of Baneshwar Mahato, whereas Ghusru Mahato, defendant No. 6 was the only legal heir of Kandra Mahato. The lands described in Schedule A recorded under Khata No. 24 of Cadastral Survey was recorded in the revisional survey under khata No. 105 of Mouza Khadilong in the names of co-sharers Lakhan Mahto, Suku Mahato, Ghusru Mahato, Gobinda Mahato, Nandlal Mahato, Birlhu Bhushan Mahato, Phul Chanel Mahato. Dilip Mahato, and Maheshwar Mahato but the specification of shares mentioned in respect of each of the co-sharers in column No. 2 of Khatiyan is not correct. The lands described in Schedule-B came to be recorded under khata No. 10 of the last revisional survey in the names of heirs of Rathu Mahato alone. Though the lands are joint lands; there has been no partition of Schedule A and Schedule B lands by rretes and bounds, though the parties have been in possession of the distinct portion of the suit lands according to convenience. The plaintiff No. 1 has got I/4th share in the suit properties and for which the plaintiff also requested for partition but the defendants did not pay any heed, hence the suit. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 filed joint written statement claiming therein that there is no unity of title and unity of possession in respect of suit property. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 filed joint written statement claiming therein that there is no unity of title and unity of possession in respect of suit property. The land under khata No. 24 was recorded in the name of Manbodh Mahato besides other lands of Cadastral survey khata No. 25 and .said Manbodh Mahato married twice. He had one son Rathu from first wife whereas he had three sons, namely, Lakhan. Kandra and Suku from second wife. Before the Cadastral survey settlement the said Manbodh separated his eldest son Rathu from him by allotting certain lands to him and the lands allotted to Rathu was recorded in the remarks column of khatiyan No. 24 under the possession of Rathu Mahto. The lands allotted to Rathu Mahto by his father Manbodh was exclusively recorded in his name as being the Schedule-1 of the written statement. 11 is also claimed t hat plot No. 81 and 89 of khata No. 24 having an area of 3.05 acres and 0.86 acres were mortgaged to some other persons. The land belonging to khata No. 17 of village Shyam Nagar was the self-acquired property of Rathu and it was recorded in the revisional survey in his name alone as he himself bad mortgaged the property in question and also redeemed the said mortgage and the said lands under revisional survey of khata was recorded under khata No. 10 in the name of heirs and legal representative of Rathu Mahato. The lands under Schedule B was never ancestral property of the party. It is further claimed that lands of Cadastral Khata No. 25 was already partitioned between Rathu and his father and the lands allotted to Rathu has been separately recorded to be in possession of his descendants in the present survey Khatiyan No. 104. It is further claimed that plot No. 66.71, and 72 under Khata No. 105 was recorded wrongly but possession of Rukhi Mahato has been recorded in the remarks column. All other lands of khata No. 105 were alleged for partition and the possession has already been noted down in the survey record of rights. The possession of lands had been noted in the remarks column as per partition already held long ago. All other lands of khata No. 105 were alleged for partition and the possession has already been noted down in the survey record of rights. The possession of lands had been noted in the remarks column as per partition already held long ago. There was disruption of joint family even before the Cadastral survey settlement operation and as such it cannot be said that the suit property was held and possessed as coparcenary property. There has been a previous partition already held, which will be evident that Sarla Mahatain purchased certain lands from Maheshwar Mahato by registered sale-deed dated 19-5-1981 and Maheshwar has also sold some lands under C.S. Khata No. 24 and as such the plaintiffs have got no cause of action for the suit and the suit is fit to be dismissed. 4. The pro forma defendant Nos. 3 and 4 also filed written statement claiming that they do not claim any interest over the suit property. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Court below framed as many as eight issues which are: 1. Is the suit as framed maintainable? 2. Have the plaintiffs valid cause of action for the suit? 3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? 4. Whether the story of partition by metes and bounds as alleged by the defendants is correct? 5. Whether Schedule B lands are self-acquired property of Rathu Mahato? 6. Whether there is unity of title and possession in between both parties over the suit lands? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition and if so what would be the share of the plaintiffs? 8. To what reliefer reliefs, if any are the plaintiffs entitled? 6. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court. The documents were also completed and after considering the evidence on record the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit. 7. In view of the above pleadings and discussions, two questions arise for consideration of this appeal: (A) Whether there was any partition in between the parties by metes and bounds? (B) Whether is unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit lands? 8. Both questions have been taken together as they are inter-related and also for the sake of convenience. 9. (B) Whether is unity of title and possession between the parties over the suit lands? 8. Both questions have been taken together as they are inter-related and also for the sake of convenience. 9. There is no dispute in respect of genealogy as described in Schedule C which is as follows: Manbodh | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Rathu Lakhan Kandra Suku | | | (Jira Mahatain | | | Widow) | ---------------- | | | | | | | | Rupchand Sarla | | | | | | ------------- | | | | | | Bhusru Badi | | ------------------------ | | | | | Jagran Mahato Ramu Ludhu ------------------------------------------------ | | | Bhadari Bneshwar Maheshwar | | | | Dillip Nunibala (Daughter) --------------------------------------------------- | | | | Gobinda Nandlal Bidhubhushan Phulchand It is also admitted position that the common ancestor, Manbodh Mahato admittedly died long before last revisional survey of 1964 leaving behind four sons namely Rathu, Lakhan, Kandra and Suku Mahto and all of them also died. Rathu Mahato also died long before the Revisional Survey of 1964 leaving behind three sons Bhadari, Baneshwar and Maheshwar and all of them also died. It is also admitted position that besides the lands described in Schedule A, Manbodh Mahato had some other lands which were recorded in Khata No. 17 of village Shyamnagar and the said land was mortgaged by eldest son Rathu Mahato by registered mortgaged deed dated 17-5-1909 and the said land was also recorded in the name of Rathu Mahato in the Cadastral Survey Khatiyan being khata No. 17 and there is also endorsement regarding the transaction of, mortgage. 10 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Court below committed error in dismissing the suit and disbelieved the story of jointness between the parties whereas it is presumed that Hindu family members are joint in property unless there is specific allegation of separation as well as the person who alleged separation has to establish the story of separation, which has not been established in the instant case. It is also submitted that Manbodh Mahato was having two wives and so there should not have been division, if any, between two wives, when the three sons from second wife will automatically put. in lose in the share. It is also submitted that Manbodh Mahato was having two wives and so there should not have been division, if any, between two wives, when the three sons from second wife will automatically put. in lose in the share. It is further submitted that the land under the Schedule B should have been held to be acquisition from the joint family funds and which is liable to be partitioned and there is unity of title and possession between the parties. It is also argued that even if partition be presumed, still the list proportionate allotment of the property were shocking to the conscious and as such the lands belonging to Schedules A and B should have been partitioned. 11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that admittedly Rathu Mahto mortgaged the lands before the Cadastral Survey Record of Rights in respect of land of Khata No. 17 of village Shyamnagar and this fact finds recorded in the Cadastral Survey record of rights and the Cadastral Survey Record of rights was published as back as in the year 1911 and so question of unity of title and possession after lapse of so many years when Manobodhan Mahato had already partitioned the land during his life time, does not arise. 12. It is also submitted that both parties have entered into transaction of the land inter se by the registered sale-deeds (Ext. B series), which go to prove the fact of separation between the parties from before. It is further argued that the receipts, Ext. 1 series as well as Ext. C series would be evident to show that all the members are paying the rent separately in respect of lands belonging to them since long and so there is no unity of title and actually the separation was already affected in the life time of Manbodhan Mahato itself before the Revisional Survey Record of rights and so the further partition of the said lands among the parties does not arise. 13. It is an admitted position that the common ancestor Manbodhan died long before the last Revisional survey of 1964. 13. It is an admitted position that the common ancestor Manbodhan died long before the last Revisional survey of 1964. It is also an admitted position that the land under khata No. 17 of village Shyamnagar which was mortgaged by Rathu Mahato, son of Manbodhan Mahato as back as on 17-5-1909 by registered mortgaged deed and which also finds recorded in the Cadastral Survey Second of Rights which is the strong circumstances in holding that the said lands belonged to Rathu Mahato alone which was held by him exclusively as back as in the year 1909. It is also clear from the record of rights published in 1964 being the Revisional survey which finds the name of heirs and legal representatives of Ratho Mahato over the said land. 14. Several sale-deeds, Ext. B series have also been tiled which indicate about the transaction of the land between the parties itself. The sale-deed, Ext. B dated 5-6-1973 executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of Bidhu Bhushan defendant No. 3, Ext. B/1 is the sale-deed dated 4-3-1975 executed by Maheshwar, son of Rathu Mahato in favour of defendant No. 4. Likewise sale-deed, Ext. B/2 dated 31-3-1976 was executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 4. The sale-deed. Ext. B/3 dated 4-3-1975 was executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 5 The sale-deed, Ext. B/4 was also executed by Maheshwar, son of Rathu in favour of Anjana Mahtain, wife of defendant No. 5. The sale-deed, Ext. B/5 dated 31-7-81 was also executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 4. In the same way, sale-deed. Ext. B/7 dated 4-7-1957 executed by Maheshwar son of Rathu in favour of Rukhi Mahtain mid the sale-deed, Ext. B/8 dated 20-8-1979 was executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendant No. 4 and all these sale-deeds. Ext. B series clearly prove as regards to the transaction, inter se between the parties since long. It is also settled that the mutual transaction between the members in strong circumstances of separation. 15. P.W. 14, the plaintiff admitted in his evidence that record of rights which was prepared was wrong. Ext. B series clearly prove as regards to the transaction, inter se between the parties since long. It is also settled that the mutual transaction between the members in strong circumstances of separation. 15. P.W. 14, the plaintiff admitted in his evidence that record of rights which was prepared was wrong. It has also been pleaded that the specification of shares mentioned in respect of each of he co-sharers in Co 1.2 of the Khatiyan is incorrect as well as the specification of shares given in the said Khatiyan of respective co-owners is wrong, but there is nothing to show that the plaintiff or his predecessars had ever raised any objection in respect of said wrong entry or preparation of the wrong record of rights. When, admittedly all the sons of common ancestor Manbodh died long ago and so admittedly the father of the plaintiff No. 1. Lakhan Mahto or the father of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, Suku Mahto never raised any objection to this effect, Plaintiff, P.W. 14 also admitted in his evidence that his father, Lakhan Mahto had purchased the land from Jeerwa Devi, the wife of Suku Mahto and according to him, the said land was also joint property, but the land which was purchased by his father belonged to him. He further admitted in para -9 that those lands belonging to Rathu Mahto at his life time are now in possession of sons of Rathu Mahto. He further stated that the three sons of Rathu Mahto also died. He further deposed that the lands belonging to his father are in his possession now and the lands belonging to Suku Mahto are now in possession of sons of Suku Mahto, whereas the lands belonging to Kandra Mahato are also in possession of his son Bhusru Mahato. 16. In this way, it is now clear that all the lands, which were in possession of respective members of the parties at the relevant time, are obviously now in possession of the respective heirs of the said persons. The record of rights admittedly have been prepared accordingly which has been prepared as back as in the year 1964 and admittedly no any objection was raised at any point of time. The record of rights admittedly have been prepared accordingly which has been prepared as back as in the year 1964 and admittedly no any objection was raised at any point of time. Moreover, the lands of khata No. 17 as described in Schedule B land has also admittedly been recorded in the name of Rathu Mahto and it was recorded in the Cadastral Survey record of rights which was prepared and published in the year 1911. The defendants/respondents also deposed that actually the common ancestor Manbodh Mahato had already partitioned the lands prior to revisional survey and Rathu Mahto was separated by his father and this fact finds corroboration from the entry of Cadastral Survey record of rights as the lands of khata No. 17 as well as the lands of khata No. 24 was recorded in the name of Rathu Mahto and in the remarks column of khata No. 24 there was mention about the possession of Ratho Mahato as owner of raiyat. The rent receipts are also standing in the name of separate co-sharers which find a proof that they are separately paying the rent in respect of land in their possession. 17. From going through the genealogy itself, it is clear that parties are not own brothers and admittedly the father of parties already died long ago. It may be noted that during the partition or separating Rathu Mahto, his father Manbodh Mahato has not divided the lands equally and there might be some disproportion in division but it is clear from the documents placed that the partition must have been taken place long go as both parties are enjoying the usufruct of land separately since long and they are also admittedly separate in mess and building. 18. It is true that there is presumption of jointness in Hindu family but the said presumption can be said to be stronger where parties are full brothers but such presumption becomes weaker and weaker by the lapse of time and the parties in third and fourth generation are found to be in separate possession of the land. In the instant case, not only from before the revisional survey settlement operation, the parties are in separate possession, separate mess, separate residence and separate cultivation, they are also dealing and transacting the lands inter se between themselves (Ext. B Series). From perusal of Khatiyan, Ext. In the instant case, not only from before the revisional survey settlement operation, the parties are in separate possession, separate mess, separate residence and separate cultivation, they are also dealing and transacting the lands inter se between themselves (Ext. B Series). From perusal of Khatiyan, Ext. D and D/1, it also appears that their names with respective shares over the land has been recorded and this fact is strong circumstance to prove the story of separation. 19. I have already discussed above that the land described in Schedule B of Khata No. 17 of village Shyamnagar admittedly recorded in the name of Ratho Mahato and it was dealt with by him exclusively through registered mortgage deed as back as in the year 1909 which finds recorded in the Cadastral Survey record of rights as well as no any other document or cogent evidence corning to show that the said land has ever been in possession of the parties jointly. In this way, there is no hesitation in concluding that the lands described in Schedule B is the exclusive land belonging to Rathu Mahto. 20. From going through the above discussions, it is evident that the parties were not only exercising their respective possessions over the properties but were also dealing with it by executing various documents in respect of their shares in between the parties inter se. So, the presumption of jointness between the parties had been sufficiently rebutted by god and cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary in the instant case, 21. In the result, I find that the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the suit having considered the evidence on record and there is nothing material to interfere with the finding of the lower Court. Thus, I do not find merit in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree dismissing the suit by the lower Court is hereby affirmed. 22. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.