K. K. LAHOTI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 343/1995 dated 22-9-2001 by which Judgment and decree passed by 9th Additional district Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 199-A/95 was affirmed. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF/respondent filed a suit claiming l/3rd share in the Joint Family property. The suit was decreed and the plea of defendant, that there was already a partition on 24-11-1952 was negatived and a decree for partition passed. ( 3 ) SHRI Alok Aradhe. learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the defendant-appellant has not been given due opportunity to adduce the evidence and suit has wrongly been decreed in spite of registered partition deed dated 24-11-1952. ( 4 ) THE learned single Judge has considered this aspect and has found that the defendant was given sufficient opportunity but neither he nor his witnesses were examined. On perusal of trial Court records, it is found that the plaintiff had closed his evidence on 13-3-89. Thereafter, the trial Court granted several adjournments to the defendant. During this period, the matter was adjourned because the application for substitution was filed and service on legal heirs took time. Thereafter, the case was again fixed for the evidence of defendant on 8-11-1994 and thereafter also several "adjournments were granted to adduce evidence on the prayer of the counsel of defendant. On 27-6-95, the prayer for adjournment on behalf of defendant was refused on the ground that the matter was an old one and there was no justification for the absence of defendant and his witnesses. Defendant did not even file any list of witnesses. As the matter was pending since 1979, the Court rightly closed the evidence of defendant. In our opinion, the trial Court granted several opportunities to the appellant/ defendant. He failed to produce the evidence in spite of adjournments including the last adjournment on 18-2-95 on payment of costs. Looking to the conduct of defendant and the opportunity granted to him, the trial Court has rightly closed the evidence. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the case of defendant that the partition was effected on November 24, 1952, by registered deed, the trial Court recorded finding that the said document was got executed by playing fraud on illiterate woman, without bringing it to her knowledge that it was a partition deed. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the case of defendant that the partition was effected on November 24, 1952, by registered deed, the trial Court recorded finding that the said document was got executed by playing fraud on illiterate woman, without bringing it to her knowledge that it was a partition deed. The learned single Judge has also considered the partition deed in Para 10 of the Judgment and has found that by this document substantial share of ancestral property was allotted to the wives of Rewa Prasad, namely, Ramkali Bai and Ramwati, there was no justification for this as Rewa Prasad was also allotted substantial part of the property. Para 10 reads as under :"there is a glaring defect in the partition which is said to have taken place in the year 1952 by the registered partition deed. It is admitted that the lands and the houses were the ancestral property of Keshri Prasad. Therefore the parties who were entitled to shares in the partition were Keshri Prasad, his son Rewa Prasad and the plaintiff who was the widow of the pre-deceased son (Jait singh) of Keshri Prasad. Girja Bai as mother of Jait Singh and Rewa Prasad was also entitled to have a share in the partition. But it is not known under which law Ram Kali and ramwati who are wives of Rewa Prasad were given shares in the partition. Legally they could not be given a share in the partition. The partition-deed Ex. P. 1 shows that ramkali and Ramwati were given 38. 98 acres and 39. 75 acres of lands respectively in the said partition. Thus a substantial chunk of the ancestral property was allotted to these two ladles who were not entitled to anything. This is a fatal defect in the partition which is said to have taken place in the year 1952. The allotment of nearly 80 acres of lands to Ramkali and Ramwati has prejudicially affected the share of the plaintiff in the ancestral property. This is a mere solid ground to invalidate the partition of the year 1952". ( 6 ) IN the circumstances above stated, suit was rightly decreed. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any other error or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. ( 7 ) WE find no substance in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances above stated, suit was rightly decreed. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any other error or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned single Judge. ( 7 ) WE find no substance in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .