Judgment TAPAN MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal being F.A. No.67 of 1985 at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Learned Subordinate Judge in partition suit no.77 of 1980. The appellant/plaintiff brought this suit for partition of the suit Ka and kha schedule properties contending that the suit Ka schedule property originally belonged to one Bhangu Rajbanshi and on his death the said property devolved upon his two sons Dheba Rajbanshi, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and Khoka Rajbanshi, the defendant in equal shares. On the death of Dheba Rajbanshi in 1362 B.S. his share in the Ka schedule property devolved upon his adopted son, the plaintiff. The plaintiff further contended that the suit Kha schedule property belonged to Dheba Rajbanshi, the defendant and Gobinda Rajbanshi each having 1/3rd share in the said property. Dheba purchased the share of Gobinda and became owner to the extent of 2/3rd share in the said Kha schedule property. On his death, his adopted son, the plaintiff became the owner of his share. Thus the plaintiff claims ½ share or 8 annas share in Ka schedule property and 2/3rd share in the Kha schedule property as an adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. The defendant now deceased denied that the plaintiff was adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi and he claimed that on death of Dheba his wife became unchaste and hence disentitled to inherit his share in the suit property and accordingly the share of Dheba Rajbanshi in the suit property devolved upon the defendant and the defendant became exclusive owner of the suit property. Learned Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Learned Trial Court the plaintiff preferred this appeal. It has been contended by the learned lawyer for the appellant that main question in the appeal is whether the plaintiff is adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. The plaintiff has proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that he is adopted son of the original owner Dheba Rajbanshi. There is clear evidence that the plaintiff was recognised for a number of years as the adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi till death. The plaintiff has proved by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that he is adopted son of the original owner Dheba Rajbanshi. There is clear evidence that the plaintiff was recognised for a number of years as the adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi till death. As adoption took place about 30 years before the date of oral evidence, some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the rustic witnesses were natural and those should be overlooked. Learned Trial Court did not consider the matter and was swayed by some minor contradictions. It was admitted by the defendant himself in his deposition in a criminal case being G.R.1468 of 1979 in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda over theft of paddy brought by the defendant that the plaintiff was adopted son of Dehba Rajbanshi. So the said admission would amply show that the plaintiff was adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. Learned lawyer for the appellant has further contended that the ceremony of adoption took place about 30 years before the date of deposition of the witnesses and in such circumstances it was natural that the positive oral evidence about adoption would be lacking. In such a case the evidence of recognition of a person as an adopted son is material and in this case there was overwhelming evidence to show that the plaintiff was treated as an adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. So, apart from oral evidence about adoption, the recognition of the plaintiff as an adopted son has established the plaintiff’s case of adoption. The plaintiff has proved that he is adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. He has also proved that ceremony of giving and taking had taken place and that he was treated as an adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi for all purposes and as such on the death of Dheba he inherited his share in the suit property as his adopted son. Learned Trial Court was wrong in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and not holding that the case of adoption was proved. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further contended that there was an issue being issue no.3 as regards defect of parties and the defendant as per judgment of Trial Court did not press that issue. So, the contention that the suit is bad for defect of parties cannot be allowed to be raised in appeal. Learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit. So, the contention that the suit is bad for defect of parties cannot be allowed to be raised in appeal. Learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court at page 1286, AIR 1945 Privy Council at page 111 and AIR 1985 Orissa at page 171. Learned Counsel for the present respondents has supported the judgment and decree of dismissal passed by the Learned Trial Court. He has contended that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. The ceremonies essential for valid adoption have not been proved. The most essential condition is that natural parents must give the child in adoption to the adoptive parents who will take the child in adoption. In this regard, no reliable evidence is available. The evidence of P.W.1 who was aged only 3 years at the time of adoption cannot be considered. P.W.2 the agnate of Dheba Rajbanshi says that the plaintiff was brought from the house of his uncle by Dheba Rajbanshi but not from the house of his natural parents. In cross-examination P.W.2 says that the plaintiff and his elder brother lived in the house of their uncle because parents were dead. So, it is clear that at the time of adoption the plaintiff’s natural parents were not alive and the parents did not give the child in adoption. Learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that according to P.W.1, Jatin is the name of his elder brother and whatever lands his natural parents had were sold by him and Jatin. After adoption the plaintiff cannot inherit the property of his natural parents. This sale shows that at the time of adoption his natural parents were not living and so he inherited the property of the natural parents and accordingly, his natural parents did not give him in adoption. The legal guardian could have given him in adoption. There is no evidence to show that the legal guardian gave him adoption. This sale shows that at the time of adoption his natural parents were not living and so he inherited the property of the natural parents and accordingly, his natural parents did not give him in adoption. The legal guardian could have given him in adoption. There is no evidence to show that the legal guardian gave him adoption. It has further been contended by the learned lawyer for the respondents that the plaintiff is not in a possession of the suit property as it is not possible for him to cultivate suit land in coming from the house of his father in law which is at a distance of 6 miles or 2 crores from the suit land. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff as regards possession falls on the rocks of contradictions. Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the suit is bad for defect of the parties. According to plaintiff Kha schedule property belonged to Dheba, Gobinda Rajbanshi and the defendant each having 1/3rd share and Dheba purchased 1/3rd share of Gobinda by registered deed. But no registered deed has been produced in court. Chandmohan Rajbanshi has 8 annas share in the lands appertaining to khatian no.37 but he has not been made party. Chandmohan and Baharu have lands appertaining to C.S. Khatian no.38 but they have not been impleaded as defendants in the suit and the suit for partition is bound to fail for defect of parties. Learned Counsel for the respondents has further contended that thus the plaintiff has failed to prove by adducing cogent and reliable evidence that plaintiff was adopted by Dheba. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court at page 114. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the evidence to prove adoption should be free from all suspicion of fraud and in this case such evidence is lacking. The suit is bad for defect of parties and consequently it is liable to be dismissed. Under the circumstances, Learned Trial Court was quite justified in dismissing the suit. The only question is whether the Learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. Decision with reasons The plaintiff claimed title in the suit property as an adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. Under the circumstances, Learned Trial Court was quite justified in dismissing the suit. The only question is whether the Learned Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit. Decision with reasons The plaintiff claimed title in the suit property as an adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. The defendant has denied that the plaintiff is adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi and claimed title to the suit property on the basis of inheritance of the share of Dheba Rajbanshi in the suit property as his brother. So, obviously, the cardinal question in this case is whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Dheba Rajbanshi. In order to prove that question the plaintiff has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff himself as P.W.1 has categorically stated that name of his father is Dheba Rajbanshi. After the death of Dheba his interest in the suit Ka and Kha schedule properties devolved upon him. Tomo was the name of Dheba’s wife and she was his mother. The name of his natural father was Basu Rajnabshi. Dheba Rajbanshi had adopted him as a son. At the time of adoption he was merely 3 years old and since the time of adoption he had been living in the house and in the family of Dheba. He had performed the Sradh ceremony on the death of Dheba. He had put fire to the mouth of Dheba at cremation ground. Tomo his mother got him married. After death of Dheba his wife Tomo lived with another man and that is called Dangua and his name was Kaloa Rajbanshi and he is still alive. Till the death of Tomo Kaloa lived in the same house with her and him and Kaloa and he possessed the land. Tomo died 15 or 16 years ago. At present he has been living in the village of Saharol, which is at distance of about 2 cros from the locality of the suit property. He is living there because he has got the homestead of his father in law at that village. He has performed the ceremony of Sradh of Tomo and took her dead body in the cremation ground and put fire on her mouth. He stands the acid test of cross-examination. In cross-examination he categorically states that he was adopted by Dheba at the time while his parents were living. He has performed the ceremony of Sradh of Tomo and took her dead body in the cremation ground and put fire on her mouth. He stands the acid test of cross-examination. In cross-examination he categorically states that he was adopted by Dheba at the time while his parents were living. Besides the evidence of P.W.1 there is evidence of P.W.2 Haricharan Rajbanshi. He categorically says that the plaintiff is adopted son of Dheba. He knows and aware at the time when he took him as adopted son. In the house of Dheba the ceremony like Seva Puja was performed for taking the plaintiff in adoption by Dheba and such ceremony was attended by the plaintiff. Priest and barber were also present. Home and Yagga ceremonies were performed. Naren (plaintiff) was brought to the house of his uncle by Dheba to his own house when Kriya Karma (ceremonies) were performed and these were performed by the Priest and the Barber and he cannot tell in details. Since that time Naren was living at the house of Dheba and he lived there as his adopted son. He had attended the cremation ground where the deadbody of Dheba was taken and there Naren performed the Mukhagni ceremony. Naren had also performed the Sradh ceremony. Still after death of Dheba, Naren lived in the same house. Naren possessed lands in 8 annas share and remaining lands of 8 annas share were possessed by Khoka and they divided the yield of lands according to their shares. After the death of Dheba his wife Tomo lived with Kaloa in the same house as a Dangoa. In cross-examination P.W.2 says that he cannot tell the year of adoption. He cannot tell how many years ago Dheba had adopted the plaintiff. After Naren was brought in the house of Dheba, the Priest had performed puja. He cannot tell what such ceremonies the Purohit got performed. But after it was over the relations took their feasts and the Barber had shaved all the male relations and he had cut the nails of Naren. After them guest attended the feast and when it was over the relatives went away. Naren was merely 3 years at that time. At that time Kalu was not working as servant in the house. 5 or 7 years after the ceremony, Dheba had died. Naren was about 8/10 years when Dheba died. After them guest attended the feast and when it was over the relatives went away. Naren was merely 3 years at that time. At that time Kalu was not working as servant in the house. 5 or 7 years after the ceremony, Dheba had died. Naren was about 8/10 years when Dheba died. At the time of bringing Naren from his uncle when Dheba adopted him he went with him at the house of his uncle which is situated at Fatepur. Naren and his elder brother lived at the house of his uncle because their parents were dead. P.W.3, a close neighbour of Dheba and the defendant says that Naren is adopted son of Dheba. Dheba and Tomo had brought Naren from his father at Fatepur. Khoka had accompanied them. After bringing Naren, ceremonies were performed by the Priest and Barber and in the ceremony Naren’s father was present so also other relations. The father of Naren gave him to Dheba during the ceremonies and Dheba and Tomo received Naren. Thereafter, Naren continued living in the house of Dheba. Naren did not have any relation with his natural father after he was adopted. Naren had performed the Sradh ceremony on the death of Dheba. He had also performed the Mukhagni and he attended the ceremonies. At the time of adoption Naren was only three years old. After Dheba died Naren and his mother possessed the properties. Naren’s mother is dead. After his mother’s dead Naren possesses the properties. Naren performed the ceremonies of Mukhagni and Sradh on the death of Tomo. In cross-examination he says that he was aged 50 years at the date of deposition. He cannot tell the date, month and year of the ceremonies but it was 20 or 30 years ago. At that time he was 18 or 19 years old. As he had accompanied Dheba and Tomo to bring Naren so also Haricharan, P.W.2 accompanied them. On the same day, they went and Naren was brought. He was brought at about 9 or 10 p.m. and on the following day the adoption ceremony was performed. The name of the Priest was Nagen Thakur. The name of the Barber was Girish Pramanik. The Barber had shaved the hair of Naren and had shaved their beard and thereafter they attended feast and left for their home. He was brought at about 9 or 10 p.m. and on the following day the adoption ceremony was performed. The name of the Priest was Nagen Thakur. The name of the Barber was Girish Pramanik. The Barber had shaved the hair of Naren and had shaved their beard and thereafter they attended feast and left for their home. P.W.4, Chandru Mandal says that Basu, the natural father of the plaintiff was his brother. He is dead. Basu had two sons. His elder son Jatin is living. Plaintiff Naren is the second son. Dheba took him as his adopted son. The ceremony of Duttak was held at the house of Dheba. He attended the ceremony. Basu, the natural father took Naren, the plaintiff with him to the house of Dheba in the ceremony and he had accompanied Basu and Naren. Basu, the natural father gave away his son Naren to Dheba and the latter accepted and received Naren. Dheba’s wife was also present and both of them received Naren. After that ceremony the relations who attended ceremony had feasts. After that Naren lived all along in the house of Dheba. At the time of adoption Naren was only aged 3 years. In cross-examination he says that he is aged 60 years. He does not remember the year of adoption. He further says that his brother Basu had separate homestead from him. When Naren was nearly 1 year old his natural mother died. After 4 or 5 years Basu had died. No son of Basu had lived at his house after the death of Basu and his wife. Jatin now lives at his house. He further says that Dheba himself had come to the house of Basu to take Naren being accompanied by other persons. When they had come to the house of his brother, Basu had called him. When Dheba had wanted Basu’s son, Basu agreed and handed over his son to Dheba and Dheba went away with the son. He also returned home. He used to visit the house of Dheba and similarly Dheba and Naren used to visit his house and house of Jatin. P.W.5, a resident of Fatepur, a contiguous village of the village of the plaintiff, says that the plaintiff Naren was adopted son of Dheba. The ceremony of such adoption was performed at Kadubari. He attended the ceremony. He used to visit the house of Dheba and similarly Dheba and Naren used to visit his house and house of Jatin. P.W.5, a resident of Fatepur, a contiguous village of the village of the plaintiff, says that the plaintiff Naren was adopted son of Dheba. The ceremony of such adoption was performed at Kadubari. He attended the ceremony. Basu, Naren’s natural father gave away Naren and Dheba took him. In cross-examination he says that he cannot tell the date or month or year of adoption. He categorically says that he was present in the ceremony. He had seen in the ceremony the father and uncle of Naren, Mahato and Dheba and Khoka and other persons whose names he does not remember. He had information that Naren was purchased by Dheba by exchange of 5 Karis. Thereafter, a feast was held after which they left the house. D.W.1, Khoka Mondal, the defendant has denied that the plaintiff was adopted by his brother Dheba. He says that Naren was brought to the house of Dheba when his parents were already dead. At the house of his father, Naren had worked as a servant for tending cattle. Some 20 to 22 years ago Dheba had died and after his death his wife Tomo lived with her Dangua Kalu. Naren had lived a year more in the house after the death. During that period of that one year Naren worked as servant for tending cattle and also worked with Kalu in the field. Neither his brother nor his wife had arranged the marriage for Naren. After death of Dheba Naren never possessed the suit properties but the land was possessed by Tomo and Kalu and after death of Tomo he has been possessing the land. In cross-examination he says that at the time when Dheba brought Naren to his house the latter was 3 years old. At the time when Naren was brought he was too young and was not ripe (mature) for doing the work like grazing cattle and thereafter when he attend the age of 10 or 11 he had started grazing cattle in the field. During that period Naren was living under the care and custody of Dheba. As he was very young Dheba and Tomo used to nurse him and feed him. Naren also used to sleep in the same cot with Dheba and Tomo. During that period Naren was living under the care and custody of Dheba. As he was very young Dheba and Tomo used to nurse him and feed him. Naren also used to sleep in the same cot with Dheba and Tomo. Naren used to call Dheba as father and Tomo as mother. D.W. 2 says that D.W.1 performed Mukhagni ceremonies on the death of Dheba and Tomo. He had performed Sradh ceremonies. Naren was 3 years old when Dheba brought him to his house. At the time when he was brought Naren’s parents were dead. When Naren grew up he had tended the cattle of Dheba. Naren lived for one year in the house after the death of Dheba. Naren never enjoyed suit properties. In the cross-examination he says that he did not see Basu while he was alive. He did not also see Naren when Basu had brought him. Dheba had brought Naren to his house. He was aged 46 or 47 years when he had seen Naren for the first occasion. Naren was 4 years old when he had come to the house of Dheba. At that time he was being reared up. He cannot tell who had carried him. In cross-examination he admits that he does not keep any information of internal house affairs of Dheba. Till his marriage Naren had lived at the house of Dheba. He admits that Naren used to address Dheba as father. Of course, he volunteers that it is usual practice that the child servant addressed either as father or as uncle. Dheba considered him not as his son but his servant although he used to call him as Baba. D.W.3 denies that Dheba had adopted the plaintiff. He says that Naren’s parents were not alive when he had come to the house of Dheba. At that time when he had come to the house he was about 5 years old. When he grew up to boyhood Naren used to tend cattle of Dheba. On the death of Dheba and Tomo defendant had performed Mukhagni and the Sradh ceremony. As usual practice the boy servant had to call the Karta of the family either as father or uncle or other relation. He says in cross-examination that after 7 or 8 years come to the house Naren had started tending cattle of Dheba. At that time Dheba was alive. As usual practice the boy servant had to call the Karta of the family either as father or uncle or other relation. He says in cross-examination that after 7 or 8 years come to the house Naren had started tending cattle of Dheba. At that time Dheba was alive. Dheba used to tell the relationship with him and Naren as father and son to the village people. Naren used to call Dheba and Tomo as father and mother. On close analysis of the oral evidence on the side of the parties it appears that there are some discrepancies in the oral evidence on the side of the plaintiff as regards giving and taking of the plaintiff in adoption. From the evidence of P.W.3, a close neighbour of the defendant and Dheba it appears that Dheba and his wife brought Naren from his father at Fatepur and ceremonies of adoption were performed by the Priest and Barber and the father of Naren gave him to Dheba in the ceremony and Dheba and Tomo received Naren. From the evidence of P.W.4 admitted brother of the natural father of plaintiff Basu the natural father took Naren, the plaintiff with him to the house of Dheba in the ceremony and he had accompanied Basu and Naren. Basu the natural father gave away his son Naren to Dheba and latter accepted and received Naren. Dheba’s wife was also present and both of them received Naren. P.W.4 assigns the reasons of his presence at the time when Dheba came to the house of Basu. He says that he was called by Basu. This is not unnatural. P.W.5 also resident of Fatepur says he attended the ceremony of adoption. Basu, Naren’s natural father gave away Naren and Dheba took him. In the ceremony he found father, uncle of Naren, Mahato, Dheba, Khoka and also other persons. P.W.2 does not say that the father of Naren gave the plaintiff to Dheba in the ceremony and Dheba and Tomo received Naren from his father. To the contrary, he says that Naren was brought from the house of his uncle by Dheba to his own house where Kriya Karma (ceremony) was performed. In cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of bringing Naren from his uncle when Dheba adopted him he went with him at the house of his uncle which is situated at Fatepur. In cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of bringing Naren from his uncle when Dheba adopted him he went with him at the house of his uncle which is situated at Fatepur. He also stated that Naren has his elder brother who lived in the house of his uncle. Naren and his elder brother lived at the house of their uncle because their parents were dead. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken advantage of the said evidence of P.W.2 and has contended that according to P.W.2 plaintiff was not brought from the house of his natural parents but from the house of his uncle and they lived in the house of their uncle because their parents were dead and so it is clear that at the time of adoption of plaintiff his parents were not alive and the parents did not give the child in adoption. Of course, P.W.2 does not say that at the time when plaintiff was brought by Dheba from the house of his uncle at Fatepur his parents were dead and so he and his elder brother lived at the house of their uncle. It appears from the evidences on the side of the plaintiff that adoption took place about 30 years prior to date of the deposition of the P.Ws in court. Due to the fallibility of the human memory, long lapse of time from the date of adoption as alleged till the date of the deposition of P.W.s in the Trial Court, such discrepancies in the evidence of the P.Ws regarding taking the plaintiff to the house of Dheba for the performance of ceremony of adoption are natural and those discrepancies should be overlooked as minor discrepancies. The evidence on the side of the plaintiff especially the evidence of P.W.4, the brother of the natural father of the plaintiff clearly shows that natural father of the plaintiff gave plaintiff Naren to Dheba in adoption and Dheba accepted and received Naren and Dheba’s wife was also present and both of them received Naren. Thus the broad fact emanates from the evidence of P.Ws that plaintiff was adopted by Dheba and ceremonies regarding adoption had taken place in the house of Dheba and plaintiff was taken from Fatepur to the house of Dheba for the purpose of such ceremonies. Thus the broad fact emanates from the evidence of P.Ws that plaintiff was adopted by Dheba and ceremonies regarding adoption had taken place in the house of Dheba and plaintiff was taken from Fatepur to the house of Dheba for the purpose of such ceremonies. In this regard reference may be made to the decision reported in AIR 1945 Privy Council at page 111 where it has been held that where all the witnesses agree as to the vital facts necessary to establish an adoption discrepancies in the evidence as to the respective positions occupied by the parties and the witnesses during the ceremony in the house where it took place are not sufficient for rejecting the evidence in support of the ceremony of adoption when such discrepancies can be explained by the length of time which had elapsed between the ceremony and the date when the witnesses were called upon to give evidence. It further appears from the evidence on the side of the plaintiff that at the time of adoption Naren was 3 years old. After adoption Naren lived in the house of Dheba. He performed the Mukhagni and Sradh ceremonies of Dheba and his wife. D.W.3 has also admitted that Dheba used to tell the relationship with him and Naren as father and son to the village people. Naren used to call Dheba and Tomo as father and mother. D.W.2 has also admitted that Naren used to address Dheba as father and Dheba used to call him as Beta. Even the defendant as D.W.1 has admitted that when Naren was brought to Dheba he was too young and was not ready for doing the work like grazing cattle and thereafter when he attained the age of 10 or 11 years he had started grazing cattle in the filed. During that period Naren was living under the care and custody of Dheba. As he was very young Dheba and Tomo used to nurse him and feed him. Naren used to sleep in the same cot with Dheba and Tomo. Naren used to call Dheba as father and Tomo as mother. During that period Naren was living under the care and custody of Dheba. As he was very young Dheba and Tomo used to nurse him and feed him. Naren used to sleep in the same cot with Dheba and Tomo. Naren used to call Dheba as father and Tomo as mother. Of course, the defendant has claimed that the plaintiff was brought to the house of Dheba as child labour but it is difficult to believe that Dheba would bring the boy of 3 years as child labour and he would nurse him with his wife and feed him and sleep with him in the same cot and he will call Naren as his son and Naren will call him as his father and he will tell the village people that this relationship between him and Naren was father and son on the expectation that after attaining the age of 10 or 11 years he would tend his cows. The story of bringing Naren to the house of Dheba as a child labour does not stand to reason. The fact that plaintiff was taken to the house of Dheba at the time when he was aged 3 years and he was treated and accepted by Dheba and his wife as their son and he also accepted them as their natural parents and performed necessary ceremonies on their death and the fact that in the L.R Settlement Record, the plaintiff’s name was recorded as son of Dheba raise presumption that the plaintiff was adopted son of Dheba. The sale of natural father’s land by the plaintiff does not ipso facto prove that story of adoption is untrue and plaintiff inherited his father’s property as there was no adoption. Even an adopted son may sell his natural father’s land out of greed. In this regard reference may be made to the ruling reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court at page 1286 where it has been held that in the case of a Hindu, long recognition as an adopted son, raises a strong presumption in favour of the validity of his adoption, arising from the possibility of the loss of his rights in his own family by being adopted in another family. In the case of an ancient adoption evidence showing that the boy was treated by relations, including the person who later on challenges the same, for a long time as the adopted son at a time when there was no controversy is sufficient to prove the adoption although evidence of actual giving and taking is not forthcoming. In the case of all ancient transactions, it is but natural that positive oral evidence will be lacking. In the case of an adoption said to have taken place years before the same is questioned, the most important evidence is likely to be that the alleged adoptive father held out the person claiming to have been adopted as his son; the latter treated the former as his father and their relations and friends treated them as father and son. There is no pre-determined way of proving any fact. If after taking an overall view of the evidence adduced in the case, the Court is satisfied that the adoption pleaded is true, it must necessarily proceed on the basis, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that it is a valid adoption as well. It further appears that, on the complaint of the defendant now deceased a police case for theft of paddy was started against the plaintiff and others and the accused were acquitted in that case. The defendant admitted that he deposed in that case. In that case in evidence as recorded the defendant has admitted that Naren (the plaintiff) was adopted by Dheba. This admission is clear and unambiguous. It is settled principle of law that admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of facts admitted. So, this admission of adoption of plaintiff by Dheba is a substantive piece of evidence and on the basis of such admission it can be said that the plaintiff was adopted by Dheba. On consideration of the materials on record, it appears that the evidence in proof of adoption is free from all suspicion of fraud and the same is so consistent and probable as to give no occasion for doubting its truth and consequently, the decision relied by the learned lawyer for the respondent reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court at page 114 does not come to his aid. It appears that the learned Trial Court did not weigh the evidence on record properly and came to the wrong conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence in support of the adoption. The said finding is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the case and also on appreciation of legal aspects and the same cannot stand. Learned Trial Court also wrongly held that there is no conclusive evidence that could be adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim of actual and physical possession of any portion of suit property. As regards possession, the plaintiff has adduced dependable evidence. P.W.1 says that he possesses and ploughs the suit property from the house of his father in law. P.W.2, also supports the possession of the suit property though he says that he possesses land in 8 annas share and remaining lands of 8 annas share was possessed by Khoka and they divided the yield of the lands according to their shares. He does not say that he deposes about the entire suit property. He of course has litigation with Khoka. P.W.3 also supports the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. He says that Naren lives at the house of his father in law. He comes in the season of cultivation and takes share of crops. He admits that his wife is Dharmadidi of Naren but he claims to be the owner of the properties adjoining the suit properties. P.W.5 says that he knows some properties of Dheba. While alive, Dheba and Khoka (defendant now deceased) and after his death Naren and Khoka cultivated the properties. Still now Naren enjoys the usufruct of the properties. Some properties of Dheba are separately cultivated by Naren and Dheba. The fact that P.W.2 was locked in litigation with Khoka and wife of P.W.3 is Dharmadidi of Naren and P.W.5 is distantly related to plaintiff is not sufficient to discard their testimonies. D.W.1, the defendant now deceased supports his possession of the suit property. D.W.2 comes to support possession of the defendant in the suit land. He is a co-villager of the defendant. He cannot remember the plot number of his land. He does not keep any information about other persons’ land in the locality. D.W.3, also supports the possession of the defendant in the suit property. D.W.2 comes to support possession of the defendant in the suit land. He is a co-villager of the defendant. He cannot remember the plot number of his land. He does not keep any information about other persons’ land in the locality. D.W.3, also supports the possession of the defendant in the suit property. He does not keep information about possession of lands at Mouja Kothabari and Kadubari by many other persons. It cannot be said that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit properties. Moreover the suit properties have not been partitioned by metes and bounds. No case of ouster has been proved. So, the plaintiff being a co-sharer should be treated to be in joint possession of the suit properties. It appears that there was an issue as regards defect of parties being issue no.3 and that issue was not pressed at the time of trial by the defendant. The respondents cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue and to argue that the suit is bad for defect of parties. Moreover, the defendant claims title to the suit property as a co-sharer of Dheba and also as a heir of Dheba. He admits that Kha schedule property belonged to himself, Dheba and Gobinda each having equal shares. Dheba purchased the properties in the share of Gobinda in the name of Tomo who is dead. So, the question of the suit being hit for defect of parties does not arise. In the result, it must be held that the Learned Trial Court was wrong in passing the decree of dismissal. He should have decreed the suit. The appeal is allowed on contest. The judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Court in partition suit no.77 of 1980 are hereby set aside. The suit is decreed on contest. The plaintiff do get a preliminary decree for partition of suit properties. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff has 8 annas share in the suit Ka schedule property and he has 2/3rd share in Kha schedule property and the present respondents have 8 annas share in the Ka schedule property and 1/3rd share in the Kha schedule property in suit. It is hereby declared that the plaintiff has 8 annas share in the suit Ka schedule property and he has 2/3rd share in Kha schedule property and the present respondents have 8 annas share in the Ka schedule property and 1/3rd share in the Kha schedule property in suit. The parties are given two months’ time for amicable partition of suit properties failing which at the instance of any of the parties the Partition Commissioner would be appointed for effecting partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds with due regard to respective possession of the parties. Both the parties will bear the cost of commission. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.