Judgment S.Nayer Hussain, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs-appellants after losing before both the learned courts below. 2. The instant matter arises out of Title Suit No. 127 of 1966 which was filed by the appellants for partition of their 14 annas share in the suit property, fully described in Schedule-3 of the plaint. 3. The claim of the plaintiffs-appellants was that the entire suit land originally belonged to one Jiut Mian who left behind two sons, Moharram Mian and Firangi Mian, who jointly inherited the suit property and their names were recorded in the record of rights. It is also claimed that subsequently both the said brothers jointly executed a registered Zerpeshgi deed dated 28.05.1921 with respect to 1 bigha 13 kathas 8 dhurs of land (described in Schedule 1 of the plaint) in the name of Balkishun Sah (ancestor of defendants No. 7 and 8) and since then the said defendants were in possession of the said land. It is also submitted that Moharram Mian died issueless in the year 1926, leaving behind a widow Amanati (defendant No. 1) and his brother Firangi Mian as his heirs and legal representatives and out of them Firangi Mian acted as a Manager and dealt with the properties and executed a further Rehan dated 31.10.1928 and also executed another Zerpeshgi deed in favour of Ramgovind Sah (ancestor of defendants No. 7 and 8) with respect to the suit land. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Firangi Mian died in the year 1944 leaving behind only two daughters, Phulbandi and Hasanbandi (defendants No. 2 and 3) as his heirs and legal representatives and they inherited 14 annas of the family whereas 2 annas share belonged to Amanati (defendant No. 1) as per the personal law applicable to the parties and they jointly remained in possession, dividing the produce. The plaintiffs also claimed that by registered sale deed dated 08.01.1962, Phulbandi and Hasanbandi sold their lands of 14 annas share in the suit land to the plaintiffs who became co-owners to that extent and when they felt difficulties in joint cultivation, they demanded partition which was refused and hence they filed the suit for partition. 4. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1, Amanati, died issueless and hence her name was expunged. 4. During the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1, Amanati, died issueless and hence her name was expunged. During the pendency of the Title Appeal defendant No. 3, Hasanbandi also died and her heirs were substituted. Defendant No. 4, Mokhtar Mian was a transferee from the original defendant No. 1. Defendants No. 5 and 6 were the purchaser from defendant No. 4. 5. The said defendants No. 2 and 3, namely, Phulbandi and Hasanbandi filed their written statements submitting that they were not daughters of Firangi Mian rather they were daughters of another person Vilayat Mian. They further claimed that Firangi Mian died issueless leaving behind his brother Moharram Mian who came in exclusive possession of the land and after his death, his widow Amanati inherited the entire land of the family. It was also claimed that the plaintiffs got the sale deed with respect to the land of Firangi Mian executed by them by playing fraud setting them as the daughters of Firangi Mian and hence by that deed the plaintiffs acquired no right, title and interest in the suit property. However, after filing of their written statement defendants No. 2 and 3 did not contest the suit. 6. Defendant No. 4, Mokhtar Mian, who was a transferee from defendant No. 1, Amanati Devi, contested the suit and filed written statement raising the same claim as raised by defendants No. 2 and 3 mentioned above and also claiming that his mother Most. Sahidan was the daughter of Jiut Mian and he was the son of the sister of Moharram Mian and Firangi Mian and hence he had 1/5th share in the property of Jiut Mian. It was also claimed that Firangi Mian died issueless leaving behind his brother Moharram Mian as his only heir and legal representative, whereafter Moharram Mian also died issueless in the year 1938-39 leaving behind his widow Amanati who inherited the entire properties and came in possession thereof and subsequently she sold it by a registered sale deed to defendant No. 4 in the year 1945, whereafter defendant No. 4 came in possession of the suit land and dealt with it as its absolute owner and also redeemed the mortgage from defendants No. 7 and 8 and sold some of the lands to defendants No. 5 and 6. 7. 7. Considering the averments of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Have the plaintiffs got a cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by Principle of ouster? (iv) Is there unity of title and unity of possession between Plaintiffs and defendant Mokhtar Mian? (v) Are the defendant Fulbandi and Hasanbandi the daughters of Firangi Mian? (vi) Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree of partition and if so, to what share? (vii) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to? 8. On the aforesaid issues evidences were led and arguments were made by the parties, whereafter the learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Chapra dismissed the suit on contest with cost vide his judgment and decree dated 11.12.1973 after arriving at the following findings: (a) In view of the evidence of the parties it has been proved that Phulbandi and Hassanbandi are not the daughters of Firangi Mian. (b) There is no evidence to show that Phulbandi and Hasanbandi ever lived in the house of Firangi Mian and Moharram Mian. (c) The plaintiffs are not co-owners or co-sharers of the suit properties. (d) The suit land has throughout remained in possession of defendant No. 4, Mokhtar Mian. (e) Plaintiffs acquired no title or possession in the suit property. Plaintiffs are neither co-owners nor co-sharers of the suit properties and hence there is no question of any ouster. (f) Plaintiffs are not entitled to any partition nor the suit for partition is maintainable. (g) Plaintiffs have got no cause of action for the suit nor they are entitled to any relief. 9. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 13 of 1974 (9 of 1984) and after considering the claims of the parties the learned court of appeal below framed following points for deciding the appeal: (i) Whether Phulbandi and Hasanbandi are the daughters of Firangi Mian. If so, whether the plaintiffs-appellants derived right and title over the suit properties by the sale deed executed by them? (ii) Whether there is unity of title and unity of possession between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 4 over the suit land? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to the decree of partition, as claimed by them? If so, to what share? (ii) Whether there is unity of title and unity of possession between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 4 over the suit land? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to the decree of partition, as claimed by them? If so, to what share? (iv) To what relief, if any, are the appellants entitled to? 10. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record on the said points the learned Additional District Judge, Gopalganj dismissed the Title Appeal on contest by judgment and decree dated 31.07.1985 after arriving at the following findings: (a) The documents produced by the plaintiffs regarding parentage of Hasanbandi and Phulbandi are created one which were never acted upon. (b) Phulbandi and Hasanbandi were not the daughters of Firangi Mian. (c) Plaintiffs did not derive any right, title and interest over the suit properties by the sale deed executed by Phulbandi and Hasanbandi. (d) There is no unity of title and unity of possession over the suit properties between the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants. (e) Plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree of partition or any other relief. (f) The learned Trial court has rightly dismissed the claim and suit of the plaintiffs. 11. Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned courts below the plaintiffs- appellants filed the instant second appeal on 19.12.1985 whereafter this second appeal was admitted on 12.01.1988, framing only the following substantial question of law: Whether the finding that Phulbandi and Hasanbandi, the vendors of the plaintiffs, were not the daughters of Firangi Mian has been arrived at in violation of Section 50 of the Evidence Act? 12. Although at the time of admission only the aforesaid one substantial question of law was framed but now learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants raises another question, claiming it to be a substantial question of law which is as follows: Whether documentary evidence exhibit-2 Series (deed of exchange) and Exhibit-1 (a) (sale deed) proved that Phulbandi and Hassanbandi were daughters of Firangi Mian? 13. 13. So far as the provision of Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 is concerned, it provides that "when the Court has to form an opinion as to relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact." In the said circumstances the evidences adduced by the plaintiffs with respect to their claim that Phulbandi and Hasanbandi were daughters of Firangi Mian are important: (a) The plaintiffs adduced altogether 12 witnesses, including plaintiff No. 1, all of whom were outsiders to the family of Moharram Mian and Firangi Mian and none of them could disclose any special means of knowledge regarding existence of relationship of father and daughters between Firangi Mian and Phulbandi & Hasanbandi, rather most of them were either unborn or minors at the time when Firangi Mian had died. They could not even give the details about the members of the family and most of them, including P.W. 11 who was the father of plaintiff No. 1, admitted that he never went to Hasanbandi and Phulbandi nor met their husbands or any of the persons of their Sasurals. In the said circumstances the learned trial court in paragraph-7 of its judgment rightly came to the conclusion that none of them had any special knowledge to speak on the relationship in dispute and their evidence is most casual in nature and their statements were not at all reliable. Furthermore, Phulbandi and Hasanbandi were alive durin C Xg the pendency of the suit but the plaintiffs did not make any effort to get them examined either in the court or on commission although they were the best persons to speak about the relationship in question. (b) Out of defendants witnesses D.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 clearly proved that they were close to Firangi Mian and had special knowledge with regard to relation in question due to their closeness with Firangi Mian. Out of them defendant No. 12 was a relative of Firangi Mian and hence he was the most competent witness to speak about the relationship in dispute. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12 clearly proved that they were close to Firangi Mian and had special knowledge with regard to relation in question due to their closeness with Firangi Mian. Out of them defendant No. 12 was a relative of Firangi Mian and hence he was the most competent witness to speak about the relationship in dispute. In addition to them defendant No. 4 had deposed as D.W. 14, who also happens to be the nephew of Firangi Mian and Moharram Mian and had fully supported the defendants case and had stood the test of his cross-examination. This fact has been considered by the learned trial court in paragraph-8 of its judgment. 14. In the said circumstances the finding of the learned Courts below that Phulbandi and Hasanbandi, the vendors of plaintiffs, were not daughters of Firangi Mian was arrived at after full appreciation of the principles of law and the evidence on record and there was no violation at all of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. 15. So far as Exhibits 1(ka) and Exhibit-2 series are concerned, they have been dealt with by the learned courts below in detail and they have not been relied upon at all after arriving at specific findings with respect thereto. (a) Exhibit-1 (ka) is the copy of the sale deed dated 04.05.1958 executed by Sk. Ali Imam and Syed Noor Mohammad in favour of Hasanbandi and Bibi Maniran in which Hasanbandi was shown to be wife of Wakil Mian and daughter of Firangi Mian. The executants of the said document was admittedly an outsider and it had not been executed by either Hasanbandi or Phulbandi or any member of the family of Firangi Mian and Moharram Mian. Hence the said document can at best be treated as an admission against her interest in the suit. But in the instant case she has been found to have no interest in the suit land and the claim of the plaintiffs is resisted in the suit by defendant No. 4, Mokhtar Mian who is not a party to the aforesaid any document. It is well settled that recital in a document between party to the suit and stranger is inadmissible in evidence unless such recital amounts to an admission against the interest of such party. It is well settled that recital in a document between party to the suit and stranger is inadmissible in evidence unless such recital amounts to an admission against the interest of such party. So far as the recital of the parentage in the concerned document is concerned, it has been given by outsiders who were stranger to the family. Hence it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs, according to the provision of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, to prove that the person making the statement had special means of knowledge of the existence of any such relationship. However, no such efforts were made by the plaintiffs to discharge their onus nor they took any step to establish any of the conditions laid down in the said provision. It was also found that in absence of the executants, the executants should have been produced who were admittedly alive but the plaintiffs did not take any step to produce them as a witness in the suit. Furthermore, with regard to description of a married lady usually the name of her husband is given and it is quite strange that in the instant case the name of husband as well as the father of one of the executants, namely, Hasanbandi had been given therein. Furthermore, the learned courts below specifically found that the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to show that the said document was ever acted upon. Hence under such circumstances the learned courts below rightly arrived at the conclusion that the said document was a created one and was not relied upon. (b) Exhibits 2 series are deeds of exchange, both executed on 20.11.1961, one by Samtullah Mian in favour of Wakil Mian and Hasanbandi and the other by Wakil Mian in favour of Hasanbandi and Samtullah Mian with respect to same lands. In that regard learned courts below have found that only in Exhibit 2/A Bibi Hasanbandi was one of the executants describing herself as wife of Wakil Mian and daughter of Firangi Mian and hence they found that it can at best be treated as admission against her claim but according to her own averment she has no interest in the suit nor she has raised any claim of having any interest in the suit properties. Hence the said admission is of no avail as the suit and claim of the plaintiffs was resisted only by defendant No. 4, Mokhtar Mian who is not a party to any of the aforesaid documents and hence the parentage of Hasanbandi given in the above documents is not binding upon the said defendant. The law is well settled that the recital in a document between parties to the suit and stranger is inadmissible in evidence unless such recital amounts to admission, against the interest of such party, so the recital of the parentage of Hasanbandi is admissible only against Hasanbandi and not against the contesting defendant No. 4, Mokhtar Mian. So far the recital of parentage in documents is concerned, usually a married lady is described in a document giving the name of her husband and it is very unusual that the names of husband and the father both are mentioned in the document. Furthermore, since Hasanbandi was one of the executants in one of the sale deeds and was alive during the pendency of the suit, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to take steps for bringing her to the evidence box, but the plaintiffs failed to take any step for producing her or any of the executants of the deeds in question as a witness to show that they had any special knowledge about the relationship in question as per the provision of Section 32 of the Act. In addition thereto the learned courts below found that there was no evidence that the said documents had ever been acted upon and thus they came to the conclusion that the said documents were created one and were not reliable. 16. In the said circumstances the documentary evidence, Exhibits 1(ka) and 2 series, did not prove that Phulbandi and Hasanbandi were daughters of Firangi Mian whereas there were a number of reliable documentary and oral evidences, including Exhibits Kha/3 which fully proved beyond doubt that Hasanbandi and Phulbandi were not the daughters of Firangi Mian, rather they were the daughters of Vilayat Mian. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law, including the above mentioned questions raised by the plaintiffs-appellants, involved in the instant second appeal which is thus dismissed. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law, including the above mentioned questions raised by the plaintiffs-appellants, involved in the instant second appeal which is thus dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.