JUDGMENT Sinha, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10th April, 1984 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad at Berhampore in partition Suit No. 79 of 1983. Defendants Nos.2 and 3 have preferred the instant appeal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree through which Learned Court below decreed the suit in preliminary form for partition declaring plaintiff-respondent No.1's share of 4 annas in the suit property. 2. The plaintiff instituted the suit for partition stating that the suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint belonged to two brothers namely Chhabi Mahato and Dinu Mahato in equal share. They expired about 60 years back from the date of institution of the suit. Chhabi Mahatodied leaving his only son Kalipada Mahato. Dinu Mahato died leaving behind two sons namely Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato. Alanath Mahato died leaving behind three sons-namely Renupada Mahato, Jerman Mahato and Batakrishna Mahato and after death of Alanath, these three sons inherited their father's interest in equal share having 1 anna, 6 gondas, 2 Karas and 2 krantis share for each of them. Thereafter Jerman Mahato, a bachelor died without leaving any heir and his interest devolved upon Renupada Mahato and Batakrishna Mahato as a result of which they had 2 annas share each in suit property. Thereafter Gour Mahato died leaving behind his widow Patu Dasi and daughter Radharani Dasi, the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 Adam Mahato is the son of deceased Kalipada Mahato. Patu Dasi had limited interest in the suit property for her life being Hindu widow and thereafter she died about 38-39 years back before institution of the suit. Plaintiff has thus undivided 4 annas share in the suit property and she is possessing the same with the defendants and she used to receive her share of produce of suit property from the defendants. The defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were entrusted with the recording of suit land but in the R.S. record of rights her name was not recorded and it has been alleged in the suit property deliberately did not record her name in the R.S. record of rights. Accordingly, she filed the suit for partition claiming her 4 annas share in the suit property. 3. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing joint written statement denying all material averments of plaint. Accordingly, she filed the suit for partition claiming her 4 annas share in the suit property. 3. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing joint written statement denying all material averments of plaint. They, inter alia, contended that the interest of plaintiff, if any, in the suit property has been extinguished by adverse possession of the said interest of plaintiff by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 for a period of over twelve years before institution of the suit. They together with father of the plaintiff belonged to Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato were members of joint Hindu family. Gour Mahato predeceased Alanath Mahato and the interest of Gour Mahato in the suit property passed to Alanath Mahato under the rule of devolution by survivorship, with, the result that, the plaintiff got no interest in the suit property. The plaintiff and the defendants are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and their predecessors migrated to Murshidabad from the District of Darbhangha in Bihar. Gour Mahato died leaving no male issue as a result of which by survivorship Alanath Mahato inherited the share of Gour Mahato on his death. Patu Dasi, widow of deceased Gour Mahato remained in the undivided family till death of Alanath Mahato and thereafter she went back to her father's place with the plaintiff and have ceased every contact with the defendants. Though Gour Mahato, Renupada Mahato, Batakrishna Mahato and Jerman Mahato in the record of rights of District Settlement were shown to have specified interest in the suit property, they remained in the joint family, having an interest at 8 annas for their joint interest forming stock of coparcenery interest therein. The suit property was recorded in the Revisional record of rights in the name of these two defendants and transferees from Adam Mahato, the defendant No.1. The defendant No.5 filed a separate written statement stating therein that he and defendant No.6 along with others purchased portion of suit property separately and contended that they are also interested in the suit property. 4. From the pleadings of the parties Learned Court below framed as many as eight issues which are mentioned in the body of judgment as well as in the lower Court record. Learned Court below while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff observed that Alanath Mahato predeceased Gour Mahato. 4. From the pleadings of the parties Learned Court below framed as many as eight issues which are mentioned in the body of judgment as well as in the lower Court record. Learned Court below while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff observed that Alanath Mahato predeceased Gour Mahato. The devolution of interest in the suit property took place before C.S. operation not in accordance with the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. In Bengal, the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law is inforce and, therefore, there is strong presumption that this rule of Hindu Law was accepted by the plaintiffs and the defendants as well as their ancestors at Rukunpur in Murshidabad. Learned Trial Court observed that Exhibit ‘A’ which is a deed of partition dated 9th April, 1951 is not at all relevant in relation to question of title of plaintiff and Exhibit ‘A’ is merely a statement of fact. There is cogent evidence to come to the conclusion that Alanath Mahato predeceased Gour Mahato. He observed that the parties are not governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and accordingly, after death of Gour Mahato his daughter namely, the plaintiff acquired 4 annas interest in the suit property and he accordingly decreed the suit. 5. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 could not swallow the verdict of the Ld. Trial Court and preferred the instant appeal. 6. It has been contended by the Learned Advocate for the appellants that the Ld. Trial Court came to the decision that the parties are not governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Ld. Trial Court was in error by observing that Alanath Mahato predeceased Gour Mahato and accordingly, after death of Gaur Mahato, the plaintiff as his sale daughter inherited the share of Gaur Mahato. He contended that from the evidence adduced by the parties it would manifestly be clear that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and their ancestors migrated from Darbhanga area of Bihar and they are still following the customs and usages of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and did not adopt customs and usages of Dayabhaga Hindu Law. The oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence will reveal that Gaur Mahato predeceased Alanath Mahato long before Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into operation. The oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence will reveal that Gaur Mahato predeceased Alanath Mahato long before Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into operation. The plaintiff did not acquire any interest in the suit property and, that being so, the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Court below should be set aside. 7. The learned Advocate for the respondents contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court are correct and there is no illegality in the judgment and decree. In view of the provisions of Sections 61 and 61A as mentioned in Mulla's Hindu Law, the plaintiff duly acquired her share in the suit property left by her father. Sections 6 and 15 of the Hindu Succession Act also establishes claim of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. After considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates of both parties and perusing the materials-an-record including the lower Court record, we are of the view that the fate of this appeal depends mainly upon two points. Firstly, whether the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law as claimed by the defendant-appellants or are governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law as claimed by the plaintiff-respondents and secondly, whether Alanath Mahato predeceased Gaur Mahato as alleged by the plaintiff. It also requires consideration as to when Gaur Mahato, the father of the plaintiff expired, that is, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into operation or even long before that. 9. In order to meet these points discussion of evidence which were laid before the learned Trial Court is necessary as we find that the learned Trial Court did not discuss the evidence properly. Perusing the Lower Court record we find that on behalf of the plaintiff 4 witnesses were examined namely P.W.1 Radharani Dasi, the plaintiff herself, P.W. 2 Alam Biswas, P.W. 3 Sadhan Pramanik and P.W. 4 Basanta Kr. Mandal, the husband of plaintiff. The defendants examined also 4 witnesses namely D.W. 1 Batakrishna Mahato, D.W. 2 Suresh Chandra Ojha, D.W. 3 Mahadev Pramanik and D.W. 4 Phonibhusan Mahato. On behalf of the plaintiff's documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 2(a) were admitted in evidence and out of these Exhibits 1 to 1 (b) are entries of C.S. record of rights in respect of Khatian Nos. On behalf of the plaintiff's documents marked as Exhibits 1 to 2(a) were admitted in evidence and out of these Exhibits 1 to 1 (b) are entries of C.S. record of rights in respect of Khatian Nos. 560, 561 and 562 of Mouza Rukunpur within P.S. Harihar Para and the record of rights show entry of name of Kalipada Mahato in respect of 8 annas share, Gaur Mahato in respect of 4 annas share and the name of Renupada Mahato, Jerman Mahato and Batakrishna Mahato in respect of residue 4 annas share, each having 1 anna, 2 gondas, 2 karas and 2 krantis share. Exhibits 2 and 2 (a) are entries of Revisional Settlement record of rights in respect of Khatian Nos. 561 and 6287 of Mouza Rukunpur within P.S. Harihar-Para. On behalf of the defendants one registered deed of partition was admitted in evidence as Exhibit ‘A’ which was executed on 9th April, 1951 and was registered on same day. Exhibits ‘B’ to ‘B-37’ are the rent receipts showing payment of rent by the defendants in respect of suit property. 10. Plaintiff Radharani Dasi deposed herself as P.W.1 and it appears that she is illiterate. She even cannot say her age properly as in cross-examination, she stated that she was about 22/23 years of age at present on the date of the examination i.e. on 3rd January, 1984. She stated that she was married first at the age of 12 years and after death of the said husband, he was married with Basanta Mondal, who is the brother of her expired husband. The age of her son is about 15/16 years. In her evidence she only stated that they are not governed by mitakshara School of Hindu Law. There is nothing more in her evidence to come to a decision as to in which school of law she belongs. P.W. 2 Alam Biswas also is not a competent witness in this respect as from his evidence nothing transpires regarding the customs and usages of the plaintiff and defendants. 11. P.W. 3 stated that he is a barber by profession and he participates in the marriage, death and other ceremonies of plaintiffs family. His evidence in cross-examination reveals that marriage ceremony of son of Basanta Mondal took place about 6 years back and as barber he pierced the lobes of the ears of the bride grooms. 11. P.W. 3 stated that he is a barber by profession and he participates in the marriage, death and other ceremonies of plaintiffs family. His evidence in cross-examination reveals that marriage ceremony of son of Basanta Mondal took place about 6 years back and as barber he pierced the lobes of the ears of the bride grooms. He further stated that clothes of the bride-grooms were coloured yellow by the neighbours and the household members of the house. From his evidence it transpires that about 45/46 families of Mahatos' reside in village Baliharpur. P.W. 4 Basanta Mondal in his evidence stated that they are not governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. But his cross-examination reveales that suresh Thakur of Jiaganj is their priest. 12. Irony of fate as it may be the defendants also claimed that Suresh Chandra Ojha of Jiaganj is their priest. Suresh Chandra Ojha has been examined by the defendants as D.W. 2. His evidence reveals that he performs as a priest in religious function in the house of defendants and he also worked as ‘Purohit’ i.e. priest in connection with religious rites in plaintiff's house. His evidence reveals that the plaintiff and defendants are governed by Mitakshara rules and customs. D.W. 2 was cross-examined at length and we do not notice any lacuna or defect in his evidence which can impair his credibility and can discard his evidence. In cross-examination he gave in details the ceremonies or rituals that are performed in the marriage. death etc. of the parties according to Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. D.W. 1 Batakrishna Mahato is defendant No.2 himself and naturally he is interested in making out his case regarding follow of rules and customs of Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. It is better not to discuss his evidence at length and it is better to rely upon independent evidence. However, in cross-examination of D.W. 2, we do not find anything which can discredit his evidence. 13. D.W. 3 deposed that he is a barber by profession and he tried to express in his evidence that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and in marriage ‘Marwa’ is erected with bamboo poles and sticks in stead of placing banana trees at marriage places like Bengal. He also stated that the bride and the bride-groom wear clothes coloured with 'Haridra' at the time of marriage. He also stated that the bride and the bride-groom wear clothes coloured with 'Haridra' at the time of marriage. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. D.W. 4 stated that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and their ancestors migrated from Bihar. His evidence also reveals that Suresh Ojha is the family priest of defendants. It appears from his cross-examination that he did not visit Bihar but this itself is not a ground to reject his evidence. 14. It, therefore, becomes clear from the evidence of P.W. 3 who is a witness for plaintiff that in the marriage ceremony of members of family plaintiffs and defendants wearing clothes of bride-groom are coloured yellow and lobes of ears of bride-grooms are pierced. Evidence of P.W. 4, the husband of plaintiff reveals that Suresh Thakur of Jiaganj is their priest. Evidence of D.W. 1, D.W. 3 and D.W. 4 also reveal that Suresh Chandra Ojha of Jiaganj is the priest of the parties Suresh Ojha himself has been examined as D.W. 2 and has stated in detail about the rituals, ceremonies etc. that are performed by the parties in the case of death, marriage, etc. in the family of plaintiffs and defendants. He also stated that he worked as priest in the different religious functions and ceremonies in the house of plaintiff and defendants. His evidence reveals that ‘Marwa’ are erected in the marriage place, the dresses of the bride-groom is coloured yellow in marriage and he also disclosed certain other features about the customs and usages that are followed by the parties in the marriage, death etc. There is no ground to disbelieve the evidence of D.W. 2 as P.W. 4 himself referred him as their priest and evidence of P.W. 3 supports the ceremonies and other features of Mitakshara customs and usages followed by parties at the time of marriage, death etc. 15. Besides that, recitals of Exhibit ‘A’ is important in this respect. Exhibit ‘A’ is the registered deed of partition executed between Adam Mahato and others as the first party, Batakrishna Mahato and others as the second party and Rabi Mahato and others as the third party. Adam Mahato is the son of Kalipada Mahato, Batakrishna Mahato is the son of Alanath Mahato and minor Rabi Mahato is the son of Renupada Mahato. Adam Mahato is the son of Kalipada Mahato, Batakrishna Mahato is the son of Alanath Mahato and minor Rabi Mahato is the son of Renupada Mahato. This deed which was executed and registered on 9th April, 1951 reveals that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School. Learned Trial Court rejected this document Abserving that plaintiff was not a party to this document and therefore no reliance can be placed on it. We are unable to agree with the finding of the learned Trial Court in this respect. No doubt, plaintiff was not a party to this document but this document can be considered as relevant for collateral purpose. It is well known that witnesses may lie but circumstances and documents cannot. There is no ground to disbelieve the recitals of this document as it was executed in 1951 when there was no existence of the suit. 16. The evidence that came before the learned Trial Court both from oral evidence of witnesses and from document makes it clear that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and not by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. The finding of the learned Trial Court that the parties were not governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law is therefore, not correct and is set aside. 17. Now it requires our consideration as to whether Gour Mahato predeceased Alanath Mahato or Alanath Mahato predeceased Gour Mahato. Scanning the evidence of the witnesses we find that none of the witnesses could throw any light regarding the exact year of death of Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato and also as to whether Gour Mahato predeceased Alanath Mahato or Alanath Mahato predeceased Gour Mahato. P.W. 1 stated that Gour Mahato was her father and after the death of father she inherited his share. She is incompetent to say who died first whether Gour Mahato or Alanath Mahato as it transpires from her cross-examination that she was about 4 years old only when her father died. We have already stated that she is so incompetent that she even could not tell her own age properly. Evidence of P.W. 2, P.W 3 and P.W. 4 do not reveal anything as to when Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato died. We have already stated that she is so incompetent that she even could not tell her own age properly. Evidence of P.W. 2, P.W 3 and P.W. 4 do not reveal anything as to when Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato died. From the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses the year of death of Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato did not transpire before the Court and their evidence did not make it clear who predeceased whom. 18. D.W. 1 Batakrishna Mahato stated that Alanath was alive at the time of death of Gour Mahato. His evidence reveals that when he deposed he was about 60 years in age and his evidence in cross-examination reveals that his father Alanath died about 60 years ago. Therefore, D.W. 1 cannot say properly as to the year of death of his father and whether his father died before Gour Mahato. Evidence of D.W 2 and D.W. 3 in this respect are net of importance as their evidence do not reveal the year of death of Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato and whether Gour Mahato predeceased Alanath Mahato. D.W. 4 tried to introduce in evidence that the plaintiff and her mother went back to the house of father of Patu Dasi after the death of Gour Mahato. His cross-examination reveals that he cannot say the year of death of Gour Mahato. Gour Mahato died about 50 years back and he was about 55 years of age on the date of his evidence i.e. on 19th March, 1984. It is hard to believe his evidence regarding death of Gour Mahato as he was about 5 years old only when Gour Mahato died and it is difficult for a child of 5 years to refresh his memory after 50 years. 19. Be that as it may, the trend of evidence adduced by both parties indicate that Gour Mahato died more than 50 years back and the parties examined witnesses in Court in the year 1984. It thus makes clear that Gour Mahato died before 1934 i.e. before the Hindu Succession Act came into operation and also before Hindu Women's right to Property Act, 1937 came into operation. When there is want of cogent and convincing evidence in a matter before the Court, the Court can rely upon preponderance of probability. It thus makes clear that Gour Mahato died before 1934 i.e. before the Hindu Succession Act came into operation and also before Hindu Women's right to Property Act, 1937 came into operation. When there is want of cogent and convincing evidence in a matter before the Court, the Court can rely upon preponderance of probability. In comparison to the witnesses examined by plaintiff in this respect, the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 4 stand on a better footing and their evidence gets support from Exhibit ‘A’, the partition deed. From the recital of the partition deed dated 9th April, 1951 it transpires that Gaur Mdhato had no son and after his death, his share passed to Alanath Mahato, his brother by survivorship. This deed also indicates that the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. This deed is relevant for collateral purpose and this deed gives light to Court to come to the finding as to who predeceased whom. Scanning the evidence of the parties and considering the document we find that it transpires from evidence that Gaur Mahato predeceased Alanath Mahato. As the parties are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law after death of Gaur Mahato, his share and interest in the suit property passed to Alanath Mahato by survivorship. After death of Alanath Mahato, his sons that is the defendants inherited that share. 20. It is well-known that Hindu Law is the personal law of Hindus. In matters of succession, inheritance, marriage etc. a Hindu is governed by his personal law. A Hindu family is governed by the law of the place where it resides. Where a Hindu migrates from one place to another, the presumption is that he carries with him the law of the place from which he has migrated. It should be remembered that this is presumption and it can be rebutted by proving that the Hindu family after migration has adopted the law and custom of the place, to which it has migrated. In the instant case, we find from the evidence and the materials-an-record as discussed earlier that the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendants migrated from the Darbhanga area of Bihar. They were governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and after migration they followed their personal Hindu Law. In the instant case, we find from the evidence and the materials-an-record as discussed earlier that the ancestors of the plaintiff and defendants migrated from the Darbhanga area of Bihar. They were governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and after migration they followed their personal Hindu Law. Even their successors i.e. present plaintiff and defendants are still following their personal law in the matters of succession, inheritance, marriage, death etc. The evidence, both oral and documentary, that came before the Court proves that the parties to the suit are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and they are following their personal law in the matters of succession, inheritance, marriage, death etc. It has not been proved that they renounced their personal law, that is, Mitakshara law and adopted the Dayabhaga law prevailing in Bengal. It has not been proved that after migration ancestors of plaintiff and defendants or the present plaintiff and the defendants adopted the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law at Rukunpur in Murshidabad. 21. There is difference in respect of law of inheritance between Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law and Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. According to Mitakshara School, the coparceners, i.e., male members of the joint family within three degrees, acquire interest in the joint property by birth. In Mitakshara coparcenery, on the death of a coparcener, his interest persons on survivorship, and not by succession, to the entire body of surviving coparceners. In Dayabhanga sons do not acquire any interest in the joint property by birth. In Dayabhaga coparcenery, the sons acquire interest in the father's estate by succession only on father's death as heirs and not by survivorship. It is admitted that Gour Mahato and Alanath Mahato were two brothers being sons of Dinu Mahato and they formed a joint family and possessed joint family properties. There was no evidence before the Court that Gour Mahato had also some self acquired properties. As it is clear from evidence and circumstances and also considering preponderance of probability that Gour Mahato died long before Hindu Succession Act came into operation and also predeceased Alanath Mahato, his daughter, namely, the plaintiff did not acquire any interest in the joint family property of Gour Mahato and the interest of Gour Mahato in the joint family property devolved upon Alanath Mahato by survivorship. If the parties were governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law the plaintiff was entitled to inherit the interest of Gour Mahato in respect of joint family property. The above discussion makes it clear that plaintiff and defendants belong to Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and they did not change their customs and usages though their ancestors migrated into Murshidabad long before and they are still following the customs and usages in different ceremonies like marriage, death etc. The plaintiff did not acquire any interest in the suit property. Learned Trial Court made error by declaring plaintiff's 4 annas share in the suit property. Learned Trial Court was also in error by observing that Alanath Mahato predeceased Gour Mahato. The findings of the Trial Court are set aside. 22. It plaintiff acquired any interest in suit property her failure to prove possession over suit property and failure to participate in payment of rent would not have disentitled her to claim share and interest as well as partition in the suit property. It is well-known that possession of a co-sharers is possession of all co-sharers unless there is clear and specific ouster of a cosharer from a certain time. As the plaintiff has failed to prove that they are governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law she did not acquire any interest in the suit property. 23. The judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad at Berhampur in partition Suit No. 79 of 1983 are hereby set aside. There is merit in the appeal and the appeal filed by the defendant-appellants stands allowed. The suit filed by the plaintiff fails and is dismissed. Considering relation between the parties we make no order as to costs and parties are to bear their respective costs in the appeal. Send down the lower Court record to the concerned Court along with copy of order for information and necessary action. Xerox certified copies will be given to the parties, if applied for, within seven days. Chakrabarti, J. : I agree.