JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Patnagarh in T.S. No.11 of 1979. 2. Plaintiffs case, in brief, was that one Pancha Rana was the owner of the suit homestead and cultivable lands. She had only one daughter, namely, Kunu. The said Kunu had three daughters, namely, Srimati, Chhai, and Mala and one son Dhoba. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are daughter and son of Srimati, defendant No.3 is the only son of Chhai,Mala is defendant No.4, plaintiff is the daughter of Dhoba through his 2nd wife Khira, defendant Nos.6 and 7 are daughters of Dhoba through his 4th wife, defend¬ant No.5. According to the plaintiff, Pancha Rana gifted the suit homestead along with the kachha house standing thereon to her daughter Kunu and the cultivable lands to her grand son Dhoba. Though Dhoba Rana lived with Kunu in the suit homestead and made some pucca structure on that homestead, yet on the death of Kunu, some time in the year 1970, the suit homestead devolved on her three daughters and only son Dhoba. Dhoba some time before his death sold the cultivable lands and out of the sale proceeds, he deposited Rs.10,000/- for his wife and three daughters, name¬ly, plaintiff and defendant Nos.6 and 7. After his death, plain¬tiff demanded her share from the suit homestead as well as the deposit made in the State Bank of India, but defendant Nos.5 to 7 declined to give any share and therefore, she had to file the suit demanding 1/4th share in the deposited amount and 1/8th share in the suit homestead land and house. 3. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed written statement admitting the genealogy and the pleading that the lands and house was the self acquired property of Pancha Rana. They however, pleaded that Pancha never gifted the suit homestead to her daughter Kunu, but out of affection, she gifted this property along with the agri¬cultural lands to her grand son, Dhoba and accordingly, Dhoba became the owner of these properties. They pleaded that during the last part of his life, Dhoba executed a will in favour of his 4th wife, who was living with him be queathing the suit homestead to her. They pleaded that during the last part of his life, Dhoba executed a will in favour of his 4th wife, who was living with him be queathing the suit homestead to her. They claimed that Dhoba also sold the agricultural lands situated at Beherabandh for Rs.23,500/- and out of the sale proceeds, he repaid the loans and then paid Rs.3,000/- to defend¬ant No.6, Rs.1500/- and five tolas and gold ornaments to the plaintiff and Rs.10,000/- to the minor daughter, defendant No.7 for her study and marriage. Because defendant No.7 was a minor, defendant No.5 received the said amount of Rs.10,000/- and depos¬ited the same in the State Bank of India on behalf of defendant No.7. Defendant Nos.5 and 7 accordingly pleaded that the plain¬tiff has no right or share in the suit land, house or the depos¬ited amount. Defendant No.7 was represented by the Court guard¬ian, who adopted the written statement of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Other defendants did not file any written statement. 4. As per the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following 9 issues. 1. Is the suit maintainable ? 2. Is there any cause of action for the suit ? 3. If the suit homestead self acquired property of Pancha Rana and if she gifted the same with the structure standing thereon to her only daughter Kunu ? 4. If the deposit of Rs.10,000/- in State Bank of India is the sale proceeds of paddy 6 lands gifted by Pancha Rana to Dhoba Rana ? 5. If plaintiff got a share in the suit homestead and the SBI deposit of Rs.10,000/- and if so what is the extent ? 6. If Dhoba perfected his title over the suit homestead by adverse possession and executed a will-name in favour of his wife Mukta (defendant No.5) ? 7. If Dhoba after making a family arrangement and providing gold to plaintiff gifted the S.B.I. deposit of Rs.10,000/- to Sarojini for her marriage and education expenses ? 8. Is the suit bared by limitation ? 9. To what relief plaintiff is entitled ? 5. In support of her claim, plaintiff examined six wit¬nesses including herself as P.W.1. The contesting defendants examined 13 witnesses including defendant No.5 as D.W.6. Besides the oral evidence, the parties also produced documents, which were marked as exhibits. 8. Is the suit bared by limitation ? 9. To what relief plaintiff is entitled ? 5. In support of her claim, plaintiff examined six wit¬nesses including herself as P.W.1. The contesting defendants examined 13 witnesses including defendant No.5 as D.W.6. Besides the oral evidence, the parties also produced documents, which were marked as exhibits. On consideration of these evidence, learned trial Judge came to hold that the suit homestead was the exclusive property of Dhoba Rana, that the will executed by said Dhoba Rana in favour of defendant No.5 is a genuine one, that the deposit of Rs.10,000/- made in the S.B.I., Patnagarh Branch was meant for defendant No.7, and that by way of family arrangement, Dhoba Rana had given Rs.1500/- and five tolas of gold ornaments to the plaintiff. It, accordingly, rejected the claim of the plaintiff for partition and dismissed the suit. The said judgment and decree is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for the appellant relying on the statement of the plaintiff and her witnesses submits that Dhoba Rana was suffering from complete paralysis and was not mentally or physically fit to consciously and voluntarily execute the will or take a decision about deposit of the amount in favour of defendant No.7.According to him, on a close reading of the oral evidence and the contents of the documents, it will be clear that the will was created and the deposit was made by defendant No.5 taking advantage of the physical and mental incapacity and dying condition of Dhoba Rana. He alleges that trial Court with¬out appreciating the evidences properly, mechanically accepted the contentions of the defendants and inferred that the will was voluntarily and consciously executed by Dhoba Rana and the amount was also deposited by him voluntarily for the welfare of defend¬ant No.7. 7. Mr. N. C. Pati, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 counter argues that the pleading and evidence of both parties taken together clearly show that the homestead land, house and the agricultural lands were the exclusive property of Dhoba Rana and that he voluntarily executed the will giving the suit home¬stead to defendant No.5. He submits that the evidence of the P.Ws. He submits that the evidence of the P.Ws. itself shows that after selling the agricultural lands, Dhoba distributed the money among his daughters and he voluntari¬ly and consciously made deposit of Rs.10,000/- in favour of de¬fendant No.7 because of the fact that defendant No.7 was a minor unmarried girl, whereas other daughters were already married. According to Mr. Pati the impugned judgment and decree are sound in all respect. 8. There is dispute that Pancha Rana acquired the suit homestead as well as some agricultural lands. There is also no dispute that Dhoba Rana was residing in the suit homestead with his mother Kunu and he continued to remain there exclusively after death of Kunu. It is further not disputed that Dhoba Rana sold the agricultural lands at Beherabandh for Rs.23,500/- and out of the sale proceeds, Rs.10,000/- is in deposit in the S.B.I., Patnagarh Branch. The main controversy is about the genuineness of the will and the purpose of deposit of Rs.10,000/- in the S.B.I., Patnagarh Branch. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit homestead was never given by way of will to defendant No.5, but defendant No.5 created the will, Ext.A in order to grab the suit homestead. It was also the case of the plaintiff that Dhoba Rana actually intended to deposit Rs.10,000/- in the Bank for his wife-defendant No.5 and the daughters-defendant Nos.6, 7 and the plaintiff, but defendant No.5 by manipulation made the deposit in her own name representing herself as guardian of defendant No.7. The case of the contesting defendants in this regard is that Dhoba had given marriage to the plaintiff and defendant No.6 and so in the last stage of his life to safeguard the future of his wife and unmarried minor daughter he willed away the suit homestead in favour of his wife, defendant No.5 and after selling the agricultural lands gave Rs.10,000/- to defend¬ant No.7 while giving smaller amount to the married daughters. 9. Plaintiff as P.W.1 in her evidence admitted that Kunu was living with Dhoba in the suit homestead and he continued to live there till his death. She also admitted that Dhoba sold the agricultural land and out of the sale proceeds gave Rs.3,000/- to defendant No.6 and paid Rs.10,000/- to Sarojini, who is defendant No.7. 9. Plaintiff as P.W.1 in her evidence admitted that Kunu was living with Dhoba in the suit homestead and he continued to live there till his death. She also admitted that Dhoba sold the agricultural land and out of the sale proceeds gave Rs.3,000/- to defendant No.6 and paid Rs.10,000/- to Sarojini, who is defendant No.7. She also stated that Dhoba promised to give five tolas of gold ornaments and Rs.1500/- to her, but defendant No.5 did not give the same to her when she demanded. Her witness stated about sale of the agricultural lands by Dhoba, but they did not speak anything specific as to whether Rs.1500/- and five tolas of gold ornaments were given to the plaintiff. Regarding the will, plain¬tiff stated that Dhoba was critically ill and was lying in a paralytic condition and was not able to talk or move his hands and fingers and in that condition he could never execute any will consciously or voluntarily. Her witness, P.Ws. 2 to 5 stated that Dhoba died in Baisakha, 1977 out of prolonged illness and that he was bed ridden for two and half months prior to his death. One of the witnesses P.W.5 stated that he cannot say what illness Dhoba suffered from, but he was unable to move or talk and his thumbs were also not working. As against this, defendant No.5 as D.Ws.6 stated that Dhoba was lying ill and was unable to move from his bed but he was able to understand things and was also able to talk. She stated that out of his free will, Dhoba executed the will nama, Ext.A in her favour giving the suit homestead to her.She also stated that out of the sale proceeds of the agricul¬tural lands, Dhoba repaid some loans and thereafter by way of family arrangement gave Rs.3,000/- to defendant No.6 and Rs.1500/- and gold ornaments weighing five tolas to the plaintiff and Rs.10,000/- to defendant No.7. She stated that because de¬fendant No.7 was minor girl reading in Class-VI, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited in the S.B.I., Patnagarh branch for her further study and marriage expenses. The statement of defendant No.5 was thoroughly supported by her witnesses. She stated that because de¬fendant No.7 was minor girl reading in Class-VI, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- was deposited in the S.B.I., Patnagarh branch for her further study and marriage expenses. The statement of defendant No.5 was thoroughly supported by her witnesses. D.W.1, a neigh¬bour, D.W.2, a local gentry, D.W.3, scribe of Ext.A, D.W.7 anoth¬er local gentleman, D.W.8 the local chowkidar and a senior citi¬zen, D.W.9 a caste man and the son of the former headman of Rana caste, and D.W.10, a local gentleman, clearly said that in their presence Dhoba executed the willname, Ext.A voluntarily and the willnama was also scribed in their presence. The scribe and other witnesses also stated that the contents of Ext.A was read over and explained to Dhoba Rana, who admitted the contents to be correct whereafter his L.T.Is. were taken on Ext.A. The scribe and witnesses have not only spoken about the execution of the document, but also proved the signatures thereon. They have also described the place, and time of execution and sequence of events in a consistent manner. It cannot be believed that so many per¬sons from different field would conspire with Defendant No.5 to create a false will and speak falsehood to support the claim of defendant Nos.5 and 7. There is also no reason for them to sup¬port these defendants or to go against the plaintiff. The evi¬dence of these witnesses thus, clearly establish that Dhoba Rana even though was critically ill and lying bed ridden, executed the willnama, Ext.A consciously and voluntarily giving the suit home¬stead to defendant No.5. 10. So far as deposit of Rs.10,000/- is concerned, the consistent plea of defendants 5 and 7 is that because defendant No.7 was a minor girl reading in Class-VI, Rs.10,000/- was kept in the bank for her further study and marriage expenses and lesser amounts were given to the other daughters. In this regard, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 6, 9 and 10 are there. The evidence of these witnesses has not been discredited in cross-examination. The plaintiff as P.W.1 also partly admitted about the family arrangement. She stated that all the daughters had come in Falgu¬na, only two months before the death of Dhoba and on that occa¬sion, Dhoba gave Rs.3,000/- to defendant No.6. She stated that Dhoba wanted to give Rs.1500/- and five tolas of gold ornaments to her, but defendant No.5 opposed. The plaintiff as P.W.1 also partly admitted about the family arrangement. She stated that all the daughters had come in Falgu¬na, only two months before the death of Dhoba and on that occa¬sion, Dhoba gave Rs.3,000/- to defendant No.6. She stated that Dhoba wanted to give Rs.1500/- and five tolas of gold ornaments to her, but defendant No.5 opposed. She stated that after the death of Dhoba, she claimed the said money and ornaments but de¬fendant No.5 refused saying that she (plaintiff) has already taken money and the ornaments. This plea of the plaintiff has not been corroborated or supported by any other evidence. P.W.6 claimed to be a member of the panch and stated that plain¬tiff called a panch meeting on 7.3.1978 and in that meeting she alleged that Dhoba promised to give her cash of Rs.1500/- and half of the suit homestead and demanded partition, but defendant No.5 declined to effect such partition before marriage of defend¬ant No.7. P.W.6 produced one panchayat nama, Ext.1 saying that it was in his custody. The statement of P.W.6 is not acceptable in any manner for the simple reason that his evidence is not in consonance with the pleadings or the evidence of the plaintiff. There was also no good reason for the document, Ext.1 to remain in his custody. Moreover, Ext.1 does not contain the signature of any of the parties. 11. There may be some amount of discrepancy here and there but by and large the evidence on record clearly shows that Dhoba Rana was the owner of the suit homestead and he consciously and voluntarily executed the willnama, Ext.A giving the said property to defendant No.5. The evidence is also clear that out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural lands, Dhoba Rana byway of family arrangement gave Rs.3,000/- to defendant No.6 and Rs.1500/- and some gold ornaments to the plaintiff and Rs.10,000/- to defendant No.7 and because defendant No.7 was minor, the said Rs.10,000/- was deposited by defendant No.5 on her behalf. In that situation, there was no merit in the claim of the plaintiff for partition of the suit homestead or the deposit¬ed cash. The trial Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in dismissing her suit. 12. The appeal is thus found to be without any merit and is dismissed on contest. But because the parties belong to the same family, no cost is awarded. Appeal dismissed.