JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - Defendant No. 4 is in appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Suit No. 65 of 1995. 2. The present Respondent No. 1 as Plaintiff filed that suit for partition of the properties of his father-Balaram Pati (Respondent No. 2) and for allotment of his share in the same. The case of the Plaintiff in brief was that his grand father-Harihar Pati being the only son inherited the coparcenary ancestral property from his father-Nandu Pati. Harihar died in the year 1973 leaving behind two sons, namely, Balaram (Defendant No. 1) and Krishna (Defendant No. 4) and four daughters, namely, Subhadra, Bilashini (D-18), Laxmi (D-19) and Rebati (D-20). During the life time of Harihar, there was an amicable partition of the coparcenary property in the year 1971 wherein Harihar for himself and widowed daughter-Subhadra kept some properties and divided the rest of the coparcenary properties between the two sons-Balarma and Krishna and each of those sons enjoyed his respective share and Balaram sold several pieces of lands out of his share to different persons. Those purchasers were Defendant Nos. 5 to 16 and 21 to 23. The Plaintiff's claim is that in the shares given to Defendant No. 1 in the partition of 1971, the Plaintiff and each of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have 1/4th share, but Defendant No. 3 is not willing for amicable partition, therefore, he filed the suit for partition of the suit property described in Schedule-A of the plaint and allotment of 1/4th share to him. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed a written statement wherein they indirectly supported the case of the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 15 filed written statement simply alleging that the suit is not maintainable. Defendant No. 17 also took the same plea. Defendant Nos. 7 to 12, the purchasers filed written statement indicating therein that they have no objection to the proposed partition, if their respective shares are carved out in their favour. Defendant Nos. 16 and 20 in the written statement claimed that there was no partition by metes and bounds in 1971 and so the property of late Harihar be partitioned and in that partition the shares to daughters-Defendant Nos. 18 to 20 be given. Defendant No. 21 simply asked for carving out the properties which were purchased by him. Defendant Nos. 16 and 20 in the written statement claimed that there was no partition by metes and bounds in 1971 and so the property of late Harihar be partitioned and in that partition the shares to daughters-Defendant Nos. 18 to 20 be given. Defendant No. 21 simply asked for carving out the properties which were purchased by him. Defendant No. 4 actually contested the suit pleading inter alia that there was never any partition by metes and bounds between Harihar, Balaram, Krishna and that the allotment sheet prepared in 1971 was never acted upon, that in order of accommodate Defendant No. 1, who was in dire need of money, he signed on sale deeds, documents and petitions according to instruction of Defendant No. 1. He also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable due to want of cause of action and also for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Defendant No. 4, accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit and also made a counter claim for partition of the coparcenary property of his father-Harihar. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following eight issues: (i) Is the suit maintainable? (ii) Is there any cause of action to bring the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (iv) Whether the suit is bad for non inclusion of properties? (v) Whether the suit is bad for misc. joinder of necessary parties? (vi) Whether there was previous partition? (vii) Whether the 'A' Schedule land is liable for partition? (viii) To what relief, if any, the Plaintiff (s) are entitled to? The Plaintiff examined eight witnesses including himself and produced documents, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 32. Defendants examined three witnesses Defendant No. 1 being D.W.1 and Defendant No. 4 being D.W.2. Defendant No. 1 produced documents, which were marked as Exts. A to R, Defendant No. 4 produced documents, which were marked as Exts. A-1 to D-1. The Court also admitted one Xerox copy of the petition filed by late Harihar Pati and Panchayat Faisal as Court's documents and marked it as Ext-X. On consideration of all these evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was a partition between Harihar and his two sons and that Defendant Nos. A-1 to D-1. The Court also admitted one Xerox copy of the petition filed by late Harihar Pati and Panchayat Faisal as Court's documents and marked it as Ext-X. On consideration of all these evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was a partition between Harihar and his two sons and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 got their respective shares in the partition and enjoyed such shares exclusively, that the Plaintiff and each of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have 1/4th share in the suit schedule property, which fell to the share of Defendant No. 1 in the partition of 1971, that there was cause of action for the suit, that the suit did not suffer from non-joinder or misjoinder of necessary party, the Court accordingly granted preliminary decree for partition of the suit property and allotment of 1/4th share to the Plaintiff and 1/4th share to each of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the same. Unhappy with the said Judgment and decree Defendant No. 4 has filed this appeal. 4. Mr. A.R. Dash, Learned Counsel for the Appellant attacked the impugned Judgment basically on the ground that the Trial Court admitted and relied on unregistered documents Exts. 1, 8, L and X, although those documents were inadmissible. He submitted that the Trial Court should not have viewed the mutation petitions filed by Defendant No. 4 and the signatures of the Defendant No. 4 on some of the sale deeds and other documents executed by Defendant No. 1 as admission of partition, because there was reliable explanation from the side of Defendant No. 4 and was supported by the scribe, P.W. 8. He further argued that the suit property stood jointly recorded in the name of Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in the settlement records, Exts. 25 to 28 published in 1984, which raise presumption that there had actually been no partition by metes and bounds between Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in 1971, but the Trial Court did not appreciate this aspect properly. Mr. Dash in essence submitted that the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of previous partition between Harihar, Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 is against the weight of evidence on record. 5. Mr. 1 and 4 in 1971, but the Trial Court did not appreciate this aspect properly. Mr. Dash in essence submitted that the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of previous partition between Harihar, Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 is against the weight of evidence on record. 5. Mr. R.K. Nayak, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 on the other hand supported the impugned Judgment and argued that besides the reliable oral evidence and documents, which were marked without objection, there were several documents which contained admission of Defendant No. 4 that there was a partition by metes and bounds between him and his brother Defendant No. 1 and that each of them was exercising exclusive right and control over his share. He also argued that in a partition of coparcenary property the daughters were not the necessary parties and therefore, the partition among the father-Harihar and the sons Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 could not be legally faulted for non-joinder of the daughters-Defendants 18 to 20. 6. At the out set, it will be profitable to note the genealogy of the family which shows the inter se relationship among the parties Nandu Pati Harihar Pati (died in 1973) Subhadra Bilasini Laxmi Rebati Balaram Krushna (died issueless) (D-18) (D-19) (D-20) (D-1) (D-4) Premalata (D-2) Hemanta Sarat (Plaintiff) (D-3) 7. The Plaintiff's specific case was that there was a previous partition on 21.11.1971 wherein Harihar kept a share for himself and his widowed daughter-Subhadra and divided the rest of the coparcenary properties between Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 and that the parties thereafter enjoyed their respective shares and Defendant No. 1 particularly, alienated several portions out of his share to different persons. Defendant No. 1, who is the father of the Plaintiff supported the plea of the Plaintiff about the previous partition and allotment of separate shares and exclusive enjoyment thereof. Defendant No. 4, however, denied the partition and the document, Ext. 1 or the Panchayat Faisala and explained that the Panchayat Faisala and the allotment sheet were never acted upon. 8. Ext. 32 is copy of the application of Harihar Pati addressed to the S.D.O., Keonjhargarh for partition of the ancestral properties among himself and his two sons-Defendant Nos. 1 and 4. Exts. A and A-1 are notices which had been sent to Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 asking them to attend the Panchyat. 8. Ext. 32 is copy of the application of Harihar Pati addressed to the S.D.O., Keonjhargarh for partition of the ancestral properties among himself and his two sons-Defendant Nos. 1 and 4. Exts. A and A-1 are notices which had been sent to Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 asking them to attend the Panchyat. P.W.7 an employee of Sub-Collector's office, Keonjhargarh produced Ext. 3 which shows that Harihar had filed an application before the S.D.O. for amicable settlement of his properties and that application was sent by the then S.D.O. to the Chairman of Keonjhargarh Municipality on 10.08.1978. P.W .6, an assistant of Keonjhargarh Municipality stated that the properties of Harihar were subject to partition through a Panchayat settlement in presence of the Chairman of the Municipality and the facts and details of the partition were reduced to writing. The Plaintiff proved the certified copy of the Panchayat decision dated 21.11.1971. Ext.8 the contents of which show that the coparcenary property of Harihar was put to partition and allotment of shares were made in favour of Harihar and his widowed daughter Subhadra, Defendant Nos. 1 and 4. In this document specific properties with area allotted to each party have been reflected. Defendant No. 4, on the other hand, stated that the partition made in the Panchyat was never acted upon and in support, he relied on the record of right of village-Brahmanigaon, Pabitra Diha and Kamargadi published in the year 1981. These documents, Exts. 25 to 28, show joint recording of the lands in the names of Defendant Nos. 1 and 4. However, Exts. G and H show that after publication of the above said RDR in the year 1981 Defendant No. 4 filed mutation case No. 781/82, 782/82 indicating therein that specific share was allotted to him in the partition of 1971 and praying for mutation of those lands separately in his name. In Ext.G, Defendant No. 4 prayed for mutation of Ac.10.13 decimals and in Ext. H for Ac.3.32 decimals. It is worthwhile to note that in these applications for mutation Defendant No. 4 admitted the factum of partition of coparcenary properties of Harihar in the year 1971 and separate possession and enjoyment of his share. Similarly, in another Mutation Case No. 783/82, Ext. H for Ac.3.32 decimals. It is worthwhile to note that in these applications for mutation Defendant No. 4 admitted the factum of partition of coparcenary properties of Harihar in the year 1971 and separate possession and enjoyment of his share. Similarly, in another Mutation Case No. 783/82, Ext. F, Defendant No. 4 prayed for mutation of Ac.0.82 decimals of land out of Ac.1.26 decimals of village-Kamargadi in his name indicating in the petition that this land also fell to his share in the year 1971 partition and that he is in exclusive possession of the land. Besides these mutation petitions, there was a registered will, Ext. 1 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of his legal heirs. 9. In this document Defendant No. 4 was a witness and his signature appears on the document. The contents of this i document also indicate that there was a partition in 1971 and separate shares were allotted to Defendant Nos. 1 and 4. As per the allotment sheet, Ac.12.89 decimals of land was allotted to Defendant No. 1 as against Ac. 15.04 decimals allotted to Defendant No. 4, which suggest that the arrangement was reasonable and believable. Further more, in the sale deeds executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of different purchasers for the lands sold out of his shares Defendant No. 4 has signed either as a witness or as a person giving consent. In mutation cases filed by some of the purchasers marked as Exts. K and M also Defendant No. 4 has put his signature as a token of consent for the sale and mutation. The only explanation of Defendant No. 4 is that in order to help Defendant No. 1, he signed on the sale deeds, will and mutation petitions. P.W.8, who scribed the mutation petitions, Exts. F, G and H said that he scribed those petitions as per instruction of Defendant No. 4 after observing all formalities and according to law and that Defendant No. 4 signed those petitions in his presence after understanding the contents thereof. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No. 1 is not an educated person, whereas Defendant No. 4 is a post graduate and was in a Government service. It is pertinent to note that Defendant No. 1 is not an educated person, whereas Defendant No. 4 is a post graduate and was in a Government service. It is not believable or probable that such a highly qualified person who was in Government service would sign so many documents and would also file mutation petitions for separate recording of blindly at the instruction of Defendant No. 1. The above noted documentary evidence and the conduct of the parties clearly establish there was a partition of the coparcenary property among Harihar, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 4 by metes and bounds and that Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 separately enjoyed their respective shares. So issue No. 6 was rightly decided by the Trial Court. 10. Issue Nos. 3 and 5 related to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Admittedly, the properties involved were ancestral coparcenary properties. Hindu Law as was prevalent in 1971 propagated that no female can be coparcener under Mitakshara law and that even a wife, though she is entitled maintenance out of her husband's property, and has to that extent an interest in his property, is not her husband's coparcener (see Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mills AIR 1966 SC 240; Pushpa Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, ). That being so, in the partition of 1971 the daughters of Harihar, namely, Defendant Nos. 18 to 20 were not necessary parties. The next question is whether these Defendant Nos. 18 to 20 were necessary parties in the suit? If these Defendants have any share in the property of Balaram (D-1), then they would be necessary parties. The effect of partition of a coparcenary property is to dissolve the coparcenary with the result that the separating members thenceforth hold their respective shares as their separate property, and the share of each member will pass on his death to his heirs. However, if a member while separating from his other coparancers continues joint with his own male issue, the share allotted to him on partition, will in his hands, retain the character of a coparcenary property as regards the male issue (see Article 339 of principles of Hindu Law by Mulla, 19th Edition). In the present case Defendant No. 1 got his share in the partition of the coparcenary properties. But at the same he had his sons, namely, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3. In the present case Defendant No. 1 got his share in the partition of the coparcenary properties. But at the same he had his sons, namely, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3. Therefore, the share which he got will continue in his hand as coparcenary property. In such property the father, each son and the wife will have equal share. That being the legal position, Defendants 18 to 20 were not necessary parties. However, in the present suit for abundant caution they were made parties. The legal heirs of some of the purchasers were alleged to be unnecessary parties. But because their predecessors in interest purchased land out of the share of Defendant No. 1, the dispute between Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 should be resolved in their presence as their interests are also involved. So, the suit did not suffer from non-joinder or mis-joinder of necessary party. 11. There was a statement of Defendant No. 4 that some of the properties were not brought to the hotchpotch in the partition of 1971, but he did not point out which of the properties were left out. Defendant No. 4 also did not specifically mention in the written statement what are the properties which have not been included in the Schedule of properties described. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly observed that the suit did not suffer from non-inclusion of the entire properties for partition. Issue No. 7 was relating to the claim of adverse possession by Defendant No. 15, but no evidence was led on that score. So, rightly this claim was rejected by the Trial Court. 12. Defendant No. 1, Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 have equal right over the properties of Defendant No. 1, which he got in the partition of 1971. So, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in allotting 1/4th share to each of the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Law is settled, that the persons, who purchased the properties legally and for due consideration are entitled to protection of their interest. So, the purchaser- Defendants, who have purchased different parts of property from Defendant No. 1 are entitled to carve out their share out of the Schedule-A Property. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court are confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest, but without cost. Final Result : Dismissed