JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — The plaintiff has filed this appeal against a reversing decision. 2. Suit was filed for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property. The inter se relationship between the parties as reflected in the genealogy is extracted hereunder: Usat Naik Hata Nanda Tetanga Kheda Hemabati Chandan Beleswar (D-1) (daughter =Kiabati (Plaintiff) Manichandra Ramachandra Narasingha (D-2) (D-3) (D-4) 3. Plaintiff’s case is as follows : ‘A’ Schedule land was the joint family property of the four brothers, Hata, Nanda, Tetanga and Kheda. ‘A’ Schedule property was partitioned in the year 1937. The properties in village Kadelmunda fell to the share of Nanda and Tetanga whereas the properties at Saletikra fell to the share of Hata and Kheda in two equal share. Tetanga having died issueless, his share was passed on to Chandan, son of Nanda. After the death of Hata, his share devolved upon his daughter Hemabati. After the death of Kheda, his only son Beleswar, defendant No. 1, inherited his share of the land in Saletikra. During the current settlement, defendant No. 1 got all the lands in both the villages recorded in his own name in connivance with the settlement authorities. Hemabati gifted her share of land as per Schedule ‘B’ of the plaint to the plaintiff by a registered deed of gift, whereafter the said land was identified through an Amin in Misc. Case No. 105 of 1980. As the defendant No. 1 created trouble, suit was filed. 4. All the defendants in a joint written statement pleaded that ‘A’ Schedule properties had been partitioned among the four brothers in the year 1939 and the lands in Kadelmunda fell to the share of Nanda and Tetanga in two equal halves and the lands of Saletikra fell to the share of Hata and Kheda. Hata had gifted half of his share to his daughter and other half to his nephew (defendant No. 1) and Hemabati never took possession. After the death of Hata in the year 1966, defendant No. 1 exclusively possessed the lands. The deed of gift by Hemabati in favour of the plaintiff was denied. Defendant No. 6, Munku, had been adopt¬ed by the plaintiff and a deed of adoption was executed on 1.6.1977. Defendant No. 6 died on 8.5.1980. The deed of gift had not been validly executed. 5. The deed of gift by Hemabati in favour of the plaintiff was denied. Defendant No. 6, Munku, had been adopt¬ed by the plaintiff and a deed of adoption was executed on 1.6.1977. Defendant No. 6 died on 8.5.1980. The deed of gift had not been validly executed. 5. The trial Court found that the gift deed had been validly executed by Hemabati in favour of the plaintiff and, accordingly, decreed the suit. In appeal filed by the defendants and the legal representatives of defendant No. 6, the validity of the gift was challenged mainly on the ground that the gift deed was in excess of the share of Hemabati in Schedule ‘A’. Such contention was accepted by the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court observed that there was no material on record to show as to which property in village Saletikra had fallen to the share of which party. It was also found that keeping in view the extent of properties of Saletikra, the gift deed in respect of eight acres and odd was definitely in excess of the half share which had allegedly fallen to the share of Hata. The lower appellate Court observed that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for parti¬tion of ‘A’ Schedule lands with prayer for allotment of Hata’s share of property in the same to her. 6. On perusal of the judgments of the Courts below, it is apparent that the validity of the gift deed was successfully challenged before the lower appellate Court only on the ground that the gift deed was in excess of half of Hata in the lands in Saletikra. There is no dispute that the present dispute is con¬fined to the lands in Saletikra as the lands in other village have admittedly fallen to the share of Nanda and Tetanga. Since the deed of gift has been found to be valid, in the lands in village Saletikra, only the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are interested. Law is now well settled that in a suit for declara¬tion of title and possession, in appropriate case if all the parties interested in the disputed property are on record, a decree for partition can be passed. (See 1977 (1) CWR 121 : Bui Sahuani and others v. Seshadev Sahu and others). 7. Law is now well settled that in a suit for declara¬tion of title and possession, in appropriate case if all the parties interested in the disputed property are on record, a decree for partition can be passed. (See 1977 (1) CWR 121 : Bui Sahuani and others v. Seshadev Sahu and others). 7. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to shorten the litigation and in the interest of justice, it is directed that the property in village Saletikra only as described in ‘A’ Schedule property shall be partitioned between the plaintiff on one hand and defendants 1 to 4 on the other hand, half share being given to the plaintiff and the balance half being given to Beleswar Naik and his sons. The respective possession of the parties should be respected as far as possible at the time of partition. 8. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the appeal is al¬lowed. There will be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.