JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 6.9.1980 and decree dated 16.9.1980 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Keonjhar in T.S. No. 56 of 1977-1. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: The present Respondents 1 to 9 as Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. Defendants 1 to 3 are Appellants. For better appreciation, the geneology of Maniram Mohanta given in Schedule-A of the plaint is as follows: Maniram Mohanta __________________________|________________________________ | | | Rijhu Fuchua Hari | | | | Saheba Hrushikesh | | | | Benga Bewa (P-5) (P-1) _________|____________________ | | | | | | Bhaktu Jagtu Jaja Khainta | = Tulsi | (D-4) | | | | (D-5) Khatu | | | \ | ________|___________ | \ | | | | | \ Chepi Chandra Krushna Charku Brahmananda Karmu (P-2) (P-3) (P-4) (D-1) (D-2) Their specific case is that properties described in Schedule-B of the plaint originally belonged to Maniram Mohanta who died leaving behind three sons, namely, Rijhu, Fuchua and Hari and subsequently the property was mutated in the names of Rijhu, Hari and Saheba in Mutation Case No. 688 of 1923-24. After the death of Maniram, his three sons separated in status and cultivated separate portions of the suit lands for convenience without partition by metes and bounds. After Rijhu's death, his sons also separated and possessed separate portions of the suit lands. After the death of Jaja, his widow married second time leaving his daughter who was arrayed as Defendant No. 4 and possessed the land of her father (Jaja). Defendant No. 3's son Chaitan got some documents fraudulently alleged to be executed by the members of the joint family for partition of the property on the pretext that he will get separate pattas from them in the recent settlement operation without explaining and disclosing the contents of the documents. Since the parties are illiterate, they were not aware of the contents of that document. The Plaintiffs demanded partition of the suit land and as the Defendants refused to do the same, they filed the suit. 3. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed their joint written statement stating therein that the Plaintiffs added Defendants 6 to 13 who claimed title to the disputed property on the plea of adverse possession in respect of different portions of the suit land. 3. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 filed their joint written statement stating therein that the Plaintiffs added Defendants 6 to 13 who claimed title to the disputed property on the plea of adverse possession in respect of different portions of the suit land. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 in their joint written statement pleaded that there was a complete partition of the suit property long ago on the basis of which the different branches of the original owner continued in peaceful possession of the disputed land. Subsequently, Saheba and Hari who ran into debts orally sold some of their lands to Defendants 6 to 13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 3 to 4 who are the successors of Saheba left the village and lived in village Pentha Sahi of Hoondadandapat and earned their livelihood as labourers while Hari served as a labourer in his own village. Some years after, Saheba returned to his village and cultivated the remaining portions of his land. Plaintiff taking advantage of the joint record of rights of the previous settlement, created trouble in peaceful possession of the Defendants after which on the intervention of some well wishers, the parties came to Champua where they sworn an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate admitting the previous partition and peaceful possession thereof. The Settlement Officer erroneously ignoring that affidavit jointly recorded the land in the names of the parties. Defendant No. 4 has no interest in the suit properties as her father died in the joint family long ago. Defendant No. 5 died during the pendency of the suit and her name was expunged from the cause-title of the suit. On the above plea, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Defendants 6, 10, 11 and 12 filed a joint written statement stating therein that Defendant No. 6 purchased two kittas of land out of suit plot No. 108/531 and Defendants 10 and 11 jointly purchased three kittas out of the same suit plot whereas Defendant No. 12's father purchased Ac. 0.20 decimals out of suit Plot No. 379 from Plaintiffs 2 to 4 under oral transactions and remained in possession for more than 30 years. Thus, they perfected title by adverse possession in respect of the land on which they are in possession and the Plaintiffs' suit to that extent is liable to be dismissed. 5. 0.20 decimals out of suit Plot No. 379 from Plaintiffs 2 to 4 under oral transactions and remained in possession for more than 30 years. Thus, they perfected title by adverse possession in respect of the land on which they are in possession and the Plaintiffs' suit to that extent is liable to be dismissed. 5. Defendants 7, 8, 9 and 13 in their joint written statement pleaded that they possessed some portions of the suit lands for more than 50 years and thereby perfected title by adverse possession against the Plaintiffs. However, they did not specify which portions of suit lands they enjoyed by way of adverse possession. Defendant No. 4 in her written statement supported the case of the Plaintiffs and specifically stated that her father Jaja lived separately from his brothers and died in separate status. After the death of her father, his brothers cultivated the lands and regularly paid her paddy produced or the money which they stopped only after institution of the suit. She supported that they was no partition by metes and bounds between the parties. On the above pleadings, the trial Court formulated as many as eight issues which are as follows: 1. If the suit is maintainable? 2. If the suit is barred by limitation? 3. If the suit is barred under the principle of estopel? 4. If the suit is bad for nonjoineder and misjoinder of parties? 5. If there has been a complete partition by metes and bounds amongst the parties in respect of suit properties as alleged by the Defendants? 6. If the suit properties are liable for partition as claimed by the Plaintiffs in this suit? 7. To what relief, if any, the Plaintiffs are entitled? 8. If the Defendants 6, 10, 11, 12 have acquired title over the suit land described in Schedules A and B of the written statement? 6. In support of their pleas, the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Trial Court as regards issue No. 5 recorded the finding that there was no previous partition although there was a separate status between Rijhu and his brother. Defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement have stated that Rijhu's sons separated after Rijhu's death. 6. In support of their pleas, the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. The Trial Court as regards issue No. 5 recorded the finding that there was no previous partition although there was a separate status between Rijhu and his brother. Defendants 1 to 3 in their written statement have stated that Rijhu's sons separated after Rijhu's death. Defendant No. 2 who was examined as D.W.2 in paragraph-5 of his deposition has admitted that the partition between his father's brothers took place when he was aged about 16 years and at the time of his deposition he was aged about 60 years which reveals that his father's brothers partitioned 44 years ago in 1936. Defendant No. 4 also proved that she is in possession of the property and has acquired absolute title to the same after 1956. She is entitled to a separate portion in the joint family property as per his father's share. 7. So far as issue Nos. 6 and 8 are concerned, the trial Court recorded the finding that though Defendants 6 to 13 in their two separate written statements claim their adverse possession during pendency of the suit, they did not contest the suit and also did not adduce any evidence in support of their claim of title by adverse possession. Therefore, the entire property is liable to be partitioned. 8. So far as issue No. 4 is concerned, the finding of the trial Court is that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, its finding is that Ext. A, the affidavit, was obtained from the Plaintiffs without their knowledge of the statement of partition as contained therein. As Ext. A, the affidavit, was obtained by the Defendants without explaining them the content thereof, the said document at best may be admission of the Plaintiff and not an estoppel. As regards the other issues, it has answered in favour of Plaintiffs and decreed the suit preliminarily on contest against Defendants 1 to 4 and ex parte against the other Defendants with costs and directed that Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 1/Gha shall be jointly entitled to 1/3rd share, Plaintiff Nos. As regards the other issues, it has answered in favour of Plaintiffs and decreed the suit preliminarily on contest against Defendants 1 to 4 and ex parte against the other Defendants with costs and directed that Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 1/Gha shall be jointly entitled to 1/3rd share, Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 are entitled to 1/3rd share and Defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/12th each in the suit properties and further directed that Plaintiffs or the Defendants shall be entitled to get their shares demarcated and possession thereof delivered to them through Court by a Civil Court Commissioner who while allotting the shares shall take into consideration the present state of possesion of the parties as far as practicable. 9. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, Defendants 1 to 3 have filed this appeal. Their main contention in this appeal is that since the joint affidavit dated 19.4.1977 (Ext. A) reveals that there was a mutual partition between the parties and the trial Court has erroneously rejected the said document without any plea of fraud, mis-representation or undue influence nor was any evidence led to that effect, it should have accepted the said document which shows that there was a family partition 40 years ago and the parties are in possession of the land and the said document was executed before the Executive Magistrate where the parties have sworn the affidavit admitting the prior family partition. Therefore, this Court should interfere with the said finding of the trial Court and the same needs to be set aside. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that not admitting the plea of Appellant but for the sake of argument even if the Appellant's submission is accepted than at best it can be said that there was a severance of status of the parties and as the property was not partitioned by metes and bounds, the trial Court has rightly decreed the Plaintiffs' suit which need not be interfered with. 11. From the above narration of facts and rival submissions of the parties, in this appeal it is to be decided that whether there was a previous partition and whether Ext. A can be treated as a document in support of the previous partition. It appears that Ext. 11. From the above narration of facts and rival submissions of the parties, in this appeal it is to be decided that whether there was a previous partition and whether Ext. A can be treated as a document in support of the previous partition. It appears that Ext. A is an affidavit dated 19.4.1977 purported to have been sworn by all the parties before the Executive Magistrate, Champua and on the basis of the said document Defendants 1 to 3 claimed that there has been a previous partition whereas the Plaintiffs have specifically stated that there was no previous partition and they were not aware of the contents of the said document as the same was written in English and the parties have admittedly put their thumb impressions n the said document. There was no endorsement that the contents of the document were read over and explained to the deponents. That was a single affidavit, which was executed by more than one deponent. The Advocate who had identified the parties in the said affidavit before the Executive Magistrate was examined as D.W.3 and he has deposed that he has not known the other deponents whom he had identified in the affidavit and he had previous acquaintance only with Defendant No. 1 for which he has identified some unknown persons. Therefore, the said document cannot be treated as a family arrangement. Plaintiffs have already explained that they were not aware of the contents of the said document. Since Defendants 1 to 3 have failed to prove the contents of the said document, its contents cannot be accepted and the said document cannot be treated as a document regarding earlier partition. 12. As the trial Court has rightly rejected the said document, this Court confirms the finding arrived at by the learned Sub-Judge, Keonjhar in T.S. No. 56 of 1977-1. 13. In the result, the first appeal is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed