JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellants, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1992 passed in Title (Partition) Suit No. 20/88, whereby and whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge IInd, Saraikella dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the common ancestor, as per case of the plsintiffs, had three sons, namely, Alsi Puran, Lahru Puran and Bir Puran. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendants of the common ancestor. The plaintiffs represent the branch of Lahru Puran and the defendants represent the branch of the Alsi Puran and Bir Puran and genealogical table given in the plaint will show the relationship between the parties. The common ancestor of both the parties had landed properties in three villages namely Tamari, Khokro and Puran Dih and lands of these villages were recorded in old survey Khatiyan No. 25 of village Purandih corresponding to new khata No. 23 described in Schedule B(1) of the plaint. The lands of village Khokro were recorded in old khata No. 88 corresponding to new khata No. 46 described in Schedule B(2) of the plaint. The lands of village Tamari were recorded in old khata No. 68 corresponding to new khata Nos. 88, 89 and 90 described in Schedule B{3) of the plaint and these were the suit lands. The suit lands were in joint possession of the common ancestor, namely Alsi Puran, Lahru Puran and Bir Puran and after their death their descendants remained in joint possession till before the last survey settlement. Further case of the appellants is that due to expansion of the family the descendants of all three branches of the common ancestor started possessing the ancestral lands separately according to their convenience and even they had separate messing, as a result of which separate possession was recorded in the last survey settlement against some of the plots and in other plots joint possession was recorded. There was further expansion in the family . and members fell incontinence in enjoying the joint family properties and, therefore, some of them started disposing the lands out of their possession without partitioning the ancestral lands. There was further expansion in the family . and members fell incontinence in enjoying the joint family properties and, therefore, some of them started disposing the lands out of their possession without partitioning the ancestral lands. Further case of the plaintiffs is that due to Subarnarekha Project some of the joint ancestral lands of the parties, described in Schedule C, were acquired under the Land Acquisition Proceeding and awards were mostly prepared in the names of the persons, who were found in physical possession over the lands. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to divide the compensation money into three equal shares and to handover one share to the plaintiffs and at the first instance defendants had agreed to do so but subsequent to encashment of the compensation amount defendants denied to divide the amount of compensation. The plaintiffs, on Ist Baisakh 1395 (Bengali Year) in villages Tamari, Khokro and Purandih, requested the defendants to partition the suit land according to the shares of the parties but the defendants refused to do so. Defendant Haremohan had sold plot Nos. 551, 547, 542, 543, 544, 546, 1021, 1022, 1023 and 241 measuring an area of 2.41 acres out of their possession and for that the said lands be allotted to them in partition. Defendant Sailu Puran had also sold some lands and those lands be allotted to him in final decree. Guhi Puran and Gobra Puran were sons of Sujan @ Duryodhan, who was the third son of Shivnath. Said Guhi and Gobra have left the suit villages about twenty years back and are untraced. As their whereabouts are not known, they are presumed to have died a civil death and as such they are not made parties in this suit. The suit lands have never been partitioned between the co-sharers by metes and bound as the plaintiffs jointly have 1/3rd share in them and the defendants jointly have 2/3rd share in them. The Land Acquisition Officer has also been made a party in this suit. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 23 have appeared in the suit and have filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. The Land Acquisition Officer has also been made a party in this suit. 3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 23 have appeared in the suit and have filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. Defendants in their written statement, while challenging the maintainability of the suit on non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties and the suit is barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, have admitted that parties are the descendants of Alsi, Lahru and Bir, who were full brothers, but the genealogical table given in Schedule A of the plaint, does not contain the names of all the descendants. Dhondha Puran died leaving behind a son Haremohan and four daughters, namely, Gaubari, Manjari, Mugi and Sukri Jugal Puran also died leaving behind two sons and four daughters. Dashrath Puran also died leaving behind a daughter and five sons. Sichand Puran also died leavirig behind a daughter and Ashirbad also died leaving behind a daughter. Nakul also died leaving behind a daughter Simati, who is also dead and she had left behind a son. Sikhar Puran, father of defendant Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 18 also died leaving behind three daughters. Dhokra died left behind two daughters and Rathu died left behind Rajkishore, plaintiff No. 4 and three other sons. They are necessary parties but their names have been left out in the genealogical table. It is also stated that during the life time the three bothers namely, Alsi, Lahru and Bir became separate in mess and properties and partitioned all their ancestral lands including the suit lands and this partition took place before the cadastral survey 1911 and accordingly in the cadastral survey operation, separate possession of their respective descendants was noted. It is denied that after the death of Alsi, Lahru and Bir all the descendants remained in joint possession till the last survey settlement. It is stated that in fact Alsi, Lahru and Bir were separately possessing their respective lands, which each of them got in the partition and after their death their descendants, began to possess the respective shares. It is denied that after the death of Alsi, Lahru and Bir all the descendants remained in joint possession till the last survey settlement. It is stated that in fact Alsi, Lahru and Bir were separately possessing their respective lands, which each of them got in the partition and after their death their descendants, began to possess the respective shares. It is submitted that three branches were in separate possession since before the survey of 1911 and such separate possession continued and in the last survey settlement also separate possession has been noted in the khatiyan but joint possession has been noted with respect to a tank and Arh since the time of Alsi, Lahru and Bir for proper management. It is stated that descendants of three branches have separately transferred the lands, which have fallen to their respecitve branches after partition. Such sale is in the knowledge of all the descendants of three branches including plaintiffs. The defendants have further stated that separate properties of the respective branches have been acquired and award were rightly prepared and the plaintiffs have also received the compensation for their lands and as such, the plaintiffs have no concern with the award prepared in the name of the defendants. It is said that partition was already effected long before 1911 and that for plot Nos. 547, 551, 1021 and 1022 belonged to the plaintiff Haradhan Puran and Chandra Puran, who were separately possessing distinct plot, for the convenience sake they joined together to sell the plots to the defendant Haremohan be registered document and the consideration money was divided among themselves. These purchased lands and his own separate plots of Mouza Tamari have been sold by defendant Haremohan. Guhi Puran and Gobra sons of Sujan, are now settled in Assam and they used to come after long gap and due to distance they have stopped coming since last 6-7 years and their shares of lands are under the possession of the descendants of Shivnath and as such they cannot be considered to have died a civil death. The claim of the plaintiffs that they have got 1/3rd share of the suit lands is denied as the partition by metes and bounds has already been effected since long and the lands are not joint. The claim of the plaintiffs that they have got 1/3rd share of the suit lands is denied as the partition by metes and bounds has already been effected since long and the lands are not joint. It is also submitted that there are also lands of the common ancestor, which have not been included in this partition suit, and so the suit is also liable to the dismissed for non-inclusion of other properties. 4. The suit was amended on the petition filed by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17, CPC and defendant Nos. 24 to 42 have been added as party and Land Acquisition Officer has been numbered as defendant No. 43. There defendant Nos. 24 to 42 appeared in the suit and filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. They have filed written statement on 7.6.1991 and appeared to have adopted the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 to 23. Defendant No. 43 has neither appealed nor filed any written statement or contested the suit. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for determination in the suit. (i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed? (ii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (iii) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (iv) Is the suit barred under the provisions of Specific Relief Act? (v) Is the suit barred under the Land Acquisition Act? (vi) Are the suit lands partitioned between Alsi, Lehru and Bir during their lifetime or after them or not? (vii) Were the defendants entitled for the whole of the compensation money for the acquisition of part of the suit lands? (viii) To what relief or reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? 6. Issue Nos. 6 and 7 were taken up together, as both the issues were important ones and after discussing evidence oral documentary on record, the learned Court below decided the issues in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. Other issues were also deckled accordingly. 7. The plaintiffs have brought this title partition suit for partition of the properties described in Schedules B(1), B(2) and B(3) on the ground that no partition has ever taken place by metes and bounds and they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties described in Schedules. Other issues were also deckled accordingly. 7. The plaintiffs have brought this title partition suit for partition of the properties described in Schedules B(1), B(2) and B(3) on the ground that no partition has ever taken place by metes and bounds and they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties described in Schedules. The plaintiffs made out a case that their ancestors had not partitioned the properties described in aforesaid schedules and since thereafter partition has never taken place, although descendants are in possession of the properties separately according to their convenience and so far as compensation amount of lands acquired under. Swarnarekha Project, out of the possession of the defendants is concerned, they should also get 1/3rd of the total amount of compensation, as the lands acquired are in joint possession of the parties. 8. On the other hand, defendants have made out a case that partition has already taken place by metes and bounds before the cadastral survey among the three common ancestors of the parties and since then they have been coming in possession according to their shares given in partition. Defendants have admitted the joint possession of land with respect to a tank and Arh for better management. 9. The learned Court below, after framing issues, had recorded evidence of witnesses oral and documentary and after scrutinizing the evidence produced on behalf of both the sides, came to a finding that partition has already taken place and there is no question of partition of the properties described in the schedules attached to the plaint. Now the question, that arise for determination, is whether there was previous partition among the common ancestors of the parties and whether plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties described in the schedules. 10. In order to prove that partition has never taken place among the common ancestors the plaintiffs have brought on record evidence and have examined 17 witnesses. 10. In order to prove that partition has never taken place among the common ancestors the plaintiffs have brought on record evidence and have examined 17 witnesses. The contention of the plaintiffs is that there is no chit of paper to show that any partition has ever taken place and there is separate possession of the parties over the properties right from the time of common ancestors and also entry in the cadastral survey khatiyan and subsequently in revisional survey khatiyan goes to show that parties were exercising possession over the land, as described in khatiyans according to their convenience only and no partition had ever taken place. It is settled principle of law that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless it is proved otherwise. 11. PW 1 is formal witness. PW 2 is Nagendra Lal Kewat. He has got land in Tamari Mauja and parties to the suit have also got 30-35 bighas of lands in Tamari but in respect of those lands partition between the parties has not taken place. They are in possession according to their convenience. He admits that plaintiffs and defendants live separately in different tola and lands are also separate and both the parties do cultivation work separately. He further admits that he has been seeing so from the time he came in senses. He denied that partition has taken place. 12. PW 3 does not say anything about the suit land. 13. PW 10 is Meghnath Puran. He says that suit lands lie in Tamari, Khokaro and Purandih and all the three Maujas are adjacent to one another. He says that these lands are of the common ancestors of the parties but he says that the properties were never partitioned in between the parties either among the common ancestors or thereafter among the descendants but they were in possession of the lands separately according to their convenience. He admits that Hari Ram has got 3-4 highas of lands in Khokaro Mauja, although 22-23 bighas of suit land lie in that Mauja. He has got the lands in Tamari Mauja and Purandih Mauja, where there are 24 bighas of lands, but they are cultivating the lands separately in Purandih Mauja. He admits that parties are cultivating the lands separately. Hari Ram and Hare Mohan live in separate houses 250 yards away from each other. 14. PW 11 is Dhur Puran. He has got the lands in Tamari Mauja and Purandih Mauja, where there are 24 bighas of lands, but they are cultivating the lands separately in Purandih Mauja. He admits that parties are cultivating the lands separately. Hari Ram and Hare Mohan live in separate houses 250 yards away from each other. 14. PW 11 is Dhur Puran. He says that suit lands lie in Tamari, Khokaro and Purandih. He has got lands in Tamari and Purandih. He says in para 3 that lands of common ancestors are still joint and partition has never taken place but in para 4 he admits that parties have occupied the lands according to their convenience and are cultivating the lands. He admits that all the three common ancestors were living separately according to their convenience. He further admits that plaintiffs are descendants of Lehru and defendants are descendants of Puran and Bir. He further admits that the lands, which Lehru cultivated, after his death, his descendants are cultivating. He further admits that the lands which were separately cultivated by Alsi, after his death his descendants are in possession and they are cultivating the lands. He further admits in para 10 that plaintiffs, according to their convenience, are cultivating the lands of their father Lehru and are in possession over the same. He further admits that all the descendants of common ancestors are in possession over the lands and house according to possession of their respective fathers, but according to their convenience. He admits in para 15 that compensation which was paid in respect of lands acquired from the possession of Lehru, was paid to plaintiffs and similarly the compensation for the lands which were under the possession of Bir, was paid to descendants of Bir and likewise compensation amount was paid to the descendants of Alsi. 15. PW 14 is Hadi Ram Puran, He is the son of Chaitu Puran. He is aged about 55 years. He is one of the plaintiffs and he has filed partition suit. He says that he had demanded partition three years before in the month of Baisakh. but they had refused partition of the lands, He admits that plaintiffs are descendants of Lehru, whereas defendants are the descendants of Alsi and Bir. According to him suit lands lie in Purandih, Khokaro and Tamar Mauja and .in all 180 biglias of land are involved in dispute. but they had refused partition of the lands, He admits that plaintiffs are descendants of Lehru, whereas defendants are the descendants of Alsi and Bir. According to him suit lands lie in Purandih, Khokaro and Tamar Mauja and .in all 180 biglias of land are involved in dispute. All the lands are joint properties of the common ancestors and till now no partition of the joint properties has taken place and rents have also been paid jointly. In recent survey lands have been shown in joint possession. He has admitted that common ancestor of all the three brothers namely, Lehru, Alsi and Bir, died before 1911 and thereafter all the three brothers lived separately according to their convenience and cultivated lands separately and came in possession over the lands separately according to their convenience. However, he did not disclose as to how much lands each of the three brothers cultivated separately. He further admits that in 1911 in cadastral survey separate entries in respect of the lands in the names of three brothers were made and names were also entered in the cadastral survey khatiyan with respect to the lands, which were in respective possession of all the three ancestors. He has denied that any partition ever took place among the three brothers. He admits that plaintiffs are descendants of Lehru. He further admits that the lands, which were in possession of Lehru, after his death, came in possession of descendants of Lehru. Similarly lands in possession of Alsi, came in possession of the descendants of Alsi after his death and lands in possession of Bir, alter his death, came in possession of his. descendants. He has denied that separate possession of lands in recent survey operation has been shown. He has further admitted that persons, who were in separate possession of the lands, have sold some lands, which were in their possession and no objection to the sale was made by any other person. He has further admitted that parties, which were in separate possession of the lands in suit, have sold the lands to one another. He admits that he has sold lands of his possession to defendant Hari Mohan and Hari Mohan came in possession of his lands. He further admits that similarly other persons have also sold lands to the descendants of other common ancestors. He admits that he has sold lands of his possession to defendant Hari Mohan and Hari Mohan came in possession of his lands. He further admits that similarly other persons have also sold lands to the descendants of other common ancestors. He further admits that compensation amount, in respect of the lands, which were acquired by the State, was paid to them. He has further admitted that other descendants also got compensation with respect to the lands, which were acquired from their possession. 16. On the other hand, 18 witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. DW 4, DW 6, DW 8, DW 12 and DW 16 are the material witnesses so far as defendants are concerned. DW 4 has come to say that all the three common ancestors were separate from their life time and were cultivating and possessing the lands seperately and they were living in separate houses. 17. DW 6 has given similar evidence. He has stated that there was partition among the three ancestors. 18. DW 1.2 has stated that partition had taken place amongst the ancestors and they were cultivating the lands separately and descendants of Alsi. Lehru and Bir are cultivating the lands separately. 19. DW 16 has also supported the case of partition. 20. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, khatiyans have been marked as Ext. 1 series. Exts. 1/e to 1/g are relating to the entries made on the basis of 1911 C.S. Operation in the names of Alsi, Lehru and Bir showing their respective possession and shares with respect to major portion of the suit lands except tank and Bandh. Exts. 1 to 1/d are the entries made in the khatiyans prepared and finally published in the year 1965-66 and in column No. 1 of khatiyan khata No. 23 has been shown in the name of Dhandhe Puran having 4 Aana and Lal Mohan Puran and others were shown having 4 Anna etc. and the remarks column related to possessory not shows that the entries have been made in the names of different persons separately. Some of the lands have been shown to be under the joint possession but entries made in the last survey of settlement records do not suggest conclusively about non-partition of the suit lands. 21. and the remarks column related to possessory not shows that the entries have been made in the names of different persons separately. Some of the lands have been shown to be under the joint possession but entries made in the last survey of settlement records do not suggest conclusively about non-partition of the suit lands. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that from the evidence of witnesses, both oral and documentary, it will appear that no partition has ever taken place and the parties are in possession over the lands in suit according to their convenience, as their common ancestors were in possession according to their convenience. He further submitted that Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless that presumption is rebutted and the person, who claims that partition had taken place, onus lies upon him to prove that partition has taken place. In this connection reliance was placed upon 1999 (2) PLJR 397, wherein it has been held that jointness of the Hindu family is a strong presumption as per the Hindu law and burden lies on the person, who deviates or asserts against jointness. In this connection reliance was also placed upon 2000 (2) PLJR 522 , wherein it has been held that presumption is of jointness between two close agnates and it is the duty of the party, who claims partition, to prove this fact. 22. It was further submitted that either in Mitakshra School or Dayabhag School the presumption is that unless a division is there either amongst coparceners or the co-sharers, the property of the Hindu family remains joint, although they may be separate in mess and separate cultivation among the co- sharers, do not mean that there was partition by metes and bounds or separation of the coparceners from the ancestral property and notings of kabjawari and revenue record do not prove separation or partition and that only gives analogy that there was separate cultivation or possession by the person, in favour of whom kabjawari has been recorded. In this connection reliance was placed upon 1999 (1) PLJR 199 and 1993 (2) PLJR 396. 23. In this connection reliance was placed upon 1999 (1) PLJR 199 and 1993 (2) PLJR 396. 23. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that on perusal of evidence of the witnesses recorded from both the sides, it will appear that the witnesses of the plaintiffs-appellants side have themselves admitted that there was previous partition as all the three common ancestors of the parties were living separate from one another in mess, cultivation and even in residence because all the three common ancestors were living in separate houses and on those counts, referred above, it leads to the inference that partition had taken place among themselves and they were not only cultivating the lands separately according to their convenience but as per partition they had acquired their respective shares and accordingly entries are made in the cadastral survey khatiyan and subsequently in the revisional survey khatiyan. It was also pointed out that the descendants of the common ancestors occupied those lands or houses, which were in exclusive possession of their respective ancestors. For example, it was pointed out that descendants of Lehru occupied the lands, which were in exclusive possession of Lehru during his life time. Similarly descendants of Alsi came in possession over those lands and house, which were in exclusive possession of Alsi during his lifetime and similarly descendants of Bir occupied the lands and house, which were in exclusive possession of Bir during his life time. It was also pointed out that descendants have sold lands of their possession to different persons and witnesses appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs have admitted that there was no objection to the sale from other side. Besides documentary evidence regarding separate entries in khatiyan also shows that there was previous partition amongst three co-sharers and accordingly they came in possession over that piece of land and, therefore, previous partition has been proved and there is no need to any partition of the properties described in schedules, as they have already partitioned. 24. Admitted case of the parties is that parties are descendants of three common ancestors, namely Alsi, Lehru and Bir and plaintiffs are the descendants of Lehru and defendants are the descendants of Alsi and Bir. 24. Admitted case of the parties is that parties are descendants of three common ancestors, namely Alsi, Lehru and Bir and plaintiffs are the descendants of Lehru and defendants are the descendants of Alsi and Bir. It also appears that descendants of Alsi are in possession of the lands and house, which were in exclusive possession of Alsi during his life time and descendants of Bir came in possession over the lands and house, which were in exclusive possession of Bir during his life time and also the descendants of Alsi came in possession over the lands and house which were in possession of Alsi during his life time. Both the sides have admitted that some of the descendants, whether of Alsi or Bir and Lehru, have sold the lands to different persons and no objection has been raised to such sales by the descendants of any common ancestors and the example of previous partition is the inter se transaction by the descendants of common ancestors for example, PW 14 have admitted that he has sold lands of his possession to one of the defendants-respondents Hare Mohan Ram and therefore, inter se transaction of sale and purchase among the branches of three common ancestors have taken place and had there been no such partition taken place earlier, then question of sale by one of the descendants of one branch of common ancestors to descendants of other branch of common ancestors could not have been taken place because when the properties were joint then how can one can sell his own property to another person. It is true that not a single witness has come to say that partition had taken place in his presence but evidence to that effect has come on record that there is entry in records of right that there is separate mess and separate cultivation between the descendants of common ancestors and they reside in separate houses from before cadastral survey of 1911 and from the facts and circumstances of the case it has to be gathered that partition had taken place previously and inter se transaction is one of the example, which proves that partition had taken place earlier and that is why the three common ancestors were living separate in every thing. Learned Court below in support of previous partition, have examined some case law land, such as 1984 PLJR 603, 1991 BUR Vol. Learned Court below in support of previous partition, have examined some case law land, such as 1984 PLJR 603, 1991 BUR Vol. 39, page 42 and 1983 BLJR, Vol. 31, page 400, which are quoted hereinbelow In 1984 PLJR 603: "Hindu Law (Partition)-Sale deeds executed by parties sometimes before the institution of the suit showing clear exercise of ownership-presumption of partitioning if to be raised-lower appellate Court not duly considering such sale-deeds finding of such Court if binding upon High Court in second appeal. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100. Held, where parties have been in possession on of land exercising rights of ownership over separate blocks of land over a long time, the Court might well presume that these lands have already been divided and the rights of the parties defined with regard to them in such a manner as to preclude there being repartition." (Para 9). In 1991 BLJR Vol. 39, page 42 : "Hindu..Law-Joint Family-Partition-Proof Disruption in joint family- Separate possession both in respect of agricultural land residence-Held, previous partition in respect of properties in suit proved. In the instant case, it is evident that there has been a disruption in the joint family. The said fact coupled with other evidence regarding separate possession both in respect of agricultural lands and residence, are on record, and, in this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that there had been a previous partition in respect of the properties in suit." In 1983 BLJR Vol. 31, page 400 : "Hindu Law-Suit for partition-Proof of previous partition by metes and bounds-Joint Family status disrupted- Subsequent suit not maintainable. Held, that there is a presumption of jointness in a Hindu family. The jointness in the Hindu family comes to an end when a partition is proved. When a partition is proved, then it will be presumed that the partition was by metes and bounds, unless it is rebutted in evidence by the other side. If the plaintiff comes with a clean case that though there was a partition, yet there was no division by metes and bounds, the Court can certainly reopen a partition if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that though there was partition of shares, still the properties were not divided by metes and bounds. That is not the case either in the plaint or in the evidence. That is not the case either in the plaint or in the evidence. The defendants have proved conclusively in the present case that there was a partition and the joint family status was disrupted and the properties were also divided between the four brothers and they were coming in separate possession on the basis of partition. The plaintiffs are not at all entitled to a partition as there was a partition by metes and bounds and the appellants could not displace the findings on the basis of the materials on record." 25. From the discussions made above and after going through the evidence both oral and documentary and also considering the points of law involved, I am of the view that this appeal does not require any interference and in the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.