Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Shri V.N. Jha, the then Sub-Judge, III, Giridih in Partition Suit No. 19/87/45/88 by which the learned Sub-Judge decreed the Suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent, in brief as stated is that the house bearing Municipal Holding land No. 314 under Ward No. IV of Giridih Municipality as described in Schedule of the plaint is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants which was constructed by Titai Mistry, grand father of the plaintiff and father of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Titai Mistry died about 15 years ago leaving behind four sons/namely, Khoshilal Mistry, Raghu Mistry, Jageshwar Mistry and Dasrath Mistry, who succeeded him and came in possession of the house in suit jointly. Raghu died about 42/43 years ago leaving behind his only son, Ramratan, the plaintiff, who succeeded him and came in possession of the house in suit jointly with his uncles, defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The front portion of the house in suit lies adjacent of the Tundi road and the back portion of the house is double-storied. In the front portion of the house the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have been running a smithery and welding shop jointly. Khoshilal Mistry, defendant No. 1 is running smithery business separately. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have been in occupation of the remaining portion of the house. It is also claimed that at the time of death of Raghu Mistry, the plaintiff was minor and it was his uncle Jageshwar Mistry, the defendant No. 3, who got him admitted in H.E. School, Giridih on 3-7-1954 in his guardianship. Khoshilal Mistry, the defendant No. 1 expressed his desire to be separated from the joint family and some disputes arose at that time regarding partition and for which Panchayati was also convened on 5-6-1977. The defendant No. 1 Khoshilal Mistry separated from the joint family after taking his share whereas the plaintiff and defendant Nos, 2 and 3 agreed to keep their shares in the movable and business joint. The decision taken by Panches was duly signed by parties and Panches on 14-6-1977 and each party received one copy of the said decision. It is further claimed that for the last 3-4 years the defendant. Nos. The decision taken by Panches was duly signed by parties and Panches on 14-6-1977 and each party received one copy of the said decision. It is further claimed that for the last 3-4 years the defendant. Nos. 2 and 3 have become dishonest and they are not giving the plaintiff any share in the income and as such the plaintiff demanded partition, but denied, hence the suit. 3. On the other hand, the defendants filed the written statement claiming therein that the suit as framed is not maintainable and the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit. It is false to say that the plaintiff is the son of late Raghu Mistry and the real fact is that Raghu Mistry died issueless on 14-1-1943 leaving behind his widow Sundari Devi, who after the death of her husband fled away with some unknown person and she never returned to her husbands house. The suit house is the ancestral property of defendants only and the plaintiff has got no concern with the suit house. Titai Mistry died on 24-7-1972 leaving behind his three sons, namely, Khoshilal Mistry, Jogeshwar Mistry, and Dasrath Mistry. Titai Mistry had four sons including Raghu Mistry but the said Raghu Mistry pre-deceased his father, Titai Mistry and Titai Mistry was the Karta of his family. Raghu Mistry died issueless in the year 1943 leaving behind only widow Most. Sundri who fled away. The defendants are doing the business separately in front portion of the house. The plaintiff has got no concern with the business of the defendants and the plaintiff has got no cause of action for the suit, which is fit to be dismissed. Additional written statement was also filed on behalf of the defendants alleging therein that Titai Mistry died on 24-7-1972 leaving behind his three sons and Raghu Mistry predeceased his father and also died issueless. It is false to allege that Jageshwar Mistry got the plaintiff admitted in H.E. School, Giridih on 3-7-1954. The defendants are doing their business separately since long time so question of separation of defendant No. 1 from joint family after taking his share does not arise. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, the learned Court below framed as many as 10 issues which are as follows: (I) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form? 4. On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, the learned Court below framed as many as 10 issues which are as follows: (I) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action for this suit? (III) Whether there exists any utility of title and possession in respect of the suit property between the parties? (IV) Whether the suit is barred under the principles of acquiescence and estoppel? (V) Whether the plaintiff has any locus standi to file the suit? (VI) Whether the valuation of the suit property is properly valued and paid ad velorum Court fee? (VII) Whether the plaintiff is liable for payment of ad velorum Court fee on the market valuation of suit property? (VIII) Whether the plaintiff has got any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property? (IX) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have a decree of partition, as prayed? (X) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relied as prayed for? 5. Both parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in the lower Court. After considerating the whole evidence on record, the learned Court below decreed the suit by the impugned judgment dated 1-9-1988. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the learned Court below has committed error in decreeing the suit without weighing the evidence on record properly as Raghu Mistry predeceased his father and the plaintiff was not the son of Raghu Mistry, It is also argued that the defendants already denied about the signature on the Panchayati paper, Ext. 4, but the said paper has not been examined by any Expert and that paper cannot be relied or considered for the decision of the suit. It is further argued that no any School paper has been produced to show that the plaintiff was ever admitted in the H.E. School, Giridih by Jogeshwar Mistry and the whole story as propounded by the plaintiff is false and concocted, 7. It is further argued that no any School paper has been produced to show that the plaintiff was ever admitted in the H.E. School, Giridih by Jogeshwar Mistry and the whole story as propounded by the plaintiff is false and concocted, 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment as the learned Sub Judge has rightly decreed the suit which itself proves from the Panchnama in which all the defendants including Jogeshwar Vishwakarma, defendant No. 3 put their signatures and neither defendant No. 1 nor defendant No. 2 has come forward to depose or controver the pleading of the plaintiff in this respect, which proves the case of the plaintiff. It is further argued that there is no denial that Raghu Mistry was the son of Titai Mistry and Raghu Mistry was also married with Sundri Devi and as such the plaintiff has established the case of being son of Raghu Mistry and as such the learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit. 8. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both sides, it would be appropriate to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced from both sides. 9. There is no dispute that both the parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara School of Law and there is also presumption of jointness between the parties but there is only dispute that the plaintiff, Ram Ratan Mistry is not the son of Raghu Mistry who was admittedly the son of Titai Mistry. It is also settled that the burden to prove partition lies on the person, who asserts it. There is clear pleading from the side of plaintiff about the Panchayati being held in respect of domestic partition between the parties. Some documents have also been filed in support of the said pleading. 10. P.W. 1, Ram Ratan Vishwakarma, the plaintiff stated in his evidence that Titai Mistry had four sons, namely, Khoshilal Vishwakarma, Jogeshwar Vishwakarma, Raghu Vishwakarma and Dasrath Vishwakarma, whereas Raghu Vishwakarma was his father and his father Raghu Vishwakarma died leaving behind him and his mother and he was the only son. According to the P.W. 1, he was residing in the said house along with defendants in the joint family and he was admitted in Giridih H.E. School by Jogeshwar Vishwakarma under his guardianship. According to the P.W. 1, he was residing in the said house along with defendants in the joint family and he was admitted in Giridih H.E. School by Jogeshwar Vishwakarma under his guardianship. He further deposed that Khoshilal Vishwakarma was separated and he took the factory in his own share and other uncles, defendant Nos, 2 and 3 remained joint with the plaintiff. He further deposed that all the parties including the defendants appointed Panchas authorising them to effect partition of the house and other properties and all the defendants including the plaintiff put their signatures on the said papers and one of the copy of the decision of the Panchas remained with him and the same has been filed in the suit being Ext. 2 and 4. He further deposed that Jogeshwar Vishwakarma used to keep the account of the whole business. He admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot say as to when his mother died, but he had born in the said house for which the suit has been filed. He also admitted in his cross-examination that Khoshilal separated from the. family on 16-8-1977 and the remaining factory started running in the name of J.V. Engineering under the ownership of Jogeshwar Vishwakarma, the defendant No. 3. He also claimed that his three uncles (defendants) and he had called the Panchayati. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, namely, Pyarelal Vishwakarma and Sarju Vishwakarma are said to be Panches and according to them, they were appointed to be Panches by the. plaintiff and defendants and they had also prepared the documents for the same. According to them, all the parties including the plaintiff put their signatures on the said papers, Ext. 2 and 3. P.W. 2 admitted in his cross-examination that mother of Ratan Lal Vishwakarma the plaintiff left the house and went to her fathers house and she died there. 11. D.W. 2, namely, Baijnath Halwai, D.W. 3, Kanhailal Ghosh, D.W. 4, Jageshwarlal Paswan and D.W. 5, Laxmi Narain Gupta claimed in their evidence that all the defendants are separate in their business. According to them, Raghu Mistry had no son but they also admitted in their evidence that they have got no concern with the business of the defendants. D.W. 5 admitted to the extent that he had not seen Raghu Mistry. According to them, Raghu Mistry had no son but they also admitted in their evidence that they have got no concern with the business of the defendants. D.W. 5 admitted to the extent that he had not seen Raghu Mistry. D.W. 6, Jageshwar Vishwakarma, defendant No. 3 claimed in his evidence that Raghu Mistry died issueless on 14-1-1943 whereas his father Titai Mistry died in the year 1972. He admitted in his cross-examination in para-14 that he performed marriage of his daughter, namely, Kumari Meena Rani with Nandlal Vishwakarma of which the Marriage invitation card has also been filed from which it appears that the name of the plaintiff Ram Ratan Vishwakarma has been figured along with others in the column of "Darshanavilashi" whereas name of the defendants are mentioned in the right side of the Card. The defendant No. 3 (D.W. 6) also admitted that he is not able to identify the signature over the Ext. 2 as indicated in para 16. He further admitted that he cannot say as to whether his signature over Ext. 2 is false or genuine. He again admitted that he came to know from his elder brother that he had not put any signature on the Panchnama. 12. It may be noted here that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 the elder brother of defendant No. 3 (D.W. 6) have not come forward to depose on this score. He also admitted that Sundri Devi, widow of Raghu Mistry went to her fathers house after the death of Raghu Mistry. 13. Ext. 2, document being filed on behalf of the plaintiff indicates that all the defendants and the plaintiff had appointed Ranches authorising them to effect the partition of the movable and immovable properties. In the said paper, Ext. 2, the Panchas have also put their signatures to which the P.Ws. 2 and 3 have admitted to be appointed as Panches and all the defendants and plaintiff also put their signatures. 14. I have already discussed above that D.W. 6, Jogeshwar Vishwakarma has not denied his signature on Ext. 2 specifically or emphatically, rather his evidence is every evasive on this score and he tried to conceal the fact by admitting that he is not able to identify due to defective eye sight. The plaintiff also filed another document, Ext. 14. I have already discussed above that D.W. 6, Jogeshwar Vishwakarma has not denied his signature on Ext. 2 specifically or emphatically, rather his evidence is every evasive on this score and he tried to conceal the fact by admitting that he is not able to identify due to defective eye sight. The plaintiff also filed another document, Ext. 4 dated 16-8-1977 over which also all the Panches put their signatures as well as all the defendants and the plaintiff also put their signatures. 15. I have already mentioned above that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not been examined nor they have come forward to deny these documents and defendant No. 3 (D.W. 6) is also not very specific to deny his signature over the document and the said document, Ext. 4 is attached with the map over which the Panchas and both parties have also put their signatures. All these documents Ext. 2 and 3 coupled with the marriage invitation card clearly go to show that the plaintiff is the son of Raghu Mistry who has been treated to be one of the members at the place of Raghu Mistry for which the Panches have also admitted this fact in their evidence. 16. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently argued that these documents have not been examined by the Expert and the signatures have been denied and as such these documents should not been taken into account. It is also submitted that the document, Ext. 4 is required to be registered under Sec. 17(1) of the Registration Act and without being registered the said document (Ext. 4) cannot be looked into. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant also relied upon the cases reported in 1986 BBCJ, Page 440 and -- . But, the facts of the instant case are quite distinguishable as admittedly the defendant No. 3/D.W. 6 did not deny emphatically or specifically his signature over the said documents, Ext. 2 and 4, as already discussed above. 17. It is, further clear that other defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are the own brothers, have also not come forward to deny their signatures over the said documents, rather two Panchas were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and they have emphatically asserted about the contents of the said documents, Ext. 2 and 4. 17. It is, further clear that other defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who are the own brothers, have also not come forward to deny their signatures over the said documents, rather two Panchas were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and they have emphatically asserted about the contents of the said documents, Ext. 2 and 4. It is true that the plaintiff claimed to be admitted in the School in his childhood in the Giridih H.E. School, but no any document to this effect has been produced, but mere non-production of the said document will not throw away the whole pleadings of the plaintiff, inasmuch as two documents, Ext. 2 and 4, over which the defendants have put their signatures along with the plaintiff lead to only conclusion that Ram Ratan Mistry the plaintiff is the son of Raghu Mistry. This fact has fully been corroborated by the Panchas as well and there is no reason as why these Panchas will speak false. Moreover, the marriage invitation card also proves about the relationship of the plaintiff with defendants. There was no reason for inserting the name of the plaintiff in the marriage invitation card which was admittedly printed on the occasion of the marriage of the daughter of Jogeshwar Mistry, defendant No. 3. 18. Thus, it is clear from the above evidence on record and discussions that plaintiff Ram Ratan Vishwakarma is the son of Raghu Mistry. 19. Some documents have also been filed from the side of the respondent, which are Ext. A, B and C in respect of the factory being run under the name and style of J.V. Engineering and for which there is no denial to this effect. The death certificates have been filed from the respondents being Ext. F series in respect of death of Raghu Mistry on 14-1-1943 and about the death of Titai Mistry on 24-7-1972, but both the death certificates have been granted on 3-8-1987 and 30-7-1987 respectively which are admittedly issued after filing of the suit, as the suit was filed as back as on 8-4-1987 and as such both the certificates can be said to be obtained afterthought. Moreover, prior death of Raghu Mistry from his father will not take away the right of the son Ram Ratan Mistry who will undoubtedly step into the shoe of his father and he (plaintiff) is entitled for the share of his father. Moreover, prior death of Raghu Mistry from his father will not take away the right of the son Ram Ratan Mistry who will undoubtedly step into the shoe of his father and he (plaintiff) is entitled for the share of his father. 20. Further, even if the Panchayati Batwara; Ext. 4 is required to be registered but it can be looked into for collateral purposes and admittedly both sides have signed over the said documents as back as in the year 1977. The said document, Ext. 4 has been described to be domestic Panchayati Batwara. Had the plaintiff, Ram Ratan Vishwakarma not been the member or son of Raghu Mistry, his name or signature would have not been figured in both the documents, Ext. 2 and 4 and even in the marriage invitation card. 21. Thus, considering the whole facts and circumstances coupled with the evidence on record, I find that the learned Sub Judge has rightly decreed the suit which does not required to be interfered with. 22. In the result, I do not find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge are hereby affirmed. No order as to cost.