Judgment : Ishan Chandra Das, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated September 15, 2006 and October 19, 2006 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) in T.S. No. 44 of 2006. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant (the plaintiff of the original suit and hereinafter referred to as the appellant) is that the properties, movable and immovable both, referred to in the scheduled ‘A’ ,‘B’ and ‘C’ of the plaint originally belonged to one Sudhanshu Mohan Das, being a Hindu and to be governed under the Daybhaga School of Hindu Law and he died intestate on March 1, 1971 leaving the appellant and the respondents (defendants of the original suit and hereinafter referred to as the respondents) as his legal heirs. The respondent no. 1 (defendant no. 1 and hereinafter referred to as respondent no. 1) was the only adult member of the family and he began to look after the immovable properties, jewellery business under the name and style of M/s. Laxminarayan Das & Sons at 81, Chowranghee Rd. and money lending business left by his father Sudhanshu Mohan Das. In the later part of 1971, the said jewellery business was also started in the Premises No. 69, Chowranghee Rd. Out of the income from said jewellery business, the respondent no. 1 with the aid and assistance of the respondents no. 2 & 3 opened a new silver jewellery business under the name and style “Shilpa Jewellers” at Premises No. 69, Chowranghee Rd. where they developed the building by way of additional construction. The respondent no. 1 with the assistance of the respondents’ no. 2 & 3 also started a new electronic business under the name and style “Sony Electronics” at the Premises no 69, Chowranghee Rd. Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 managed to get his other brothers in his grip and continued to look after the family business of jewellery under the name and style M/s. Laxminarayan Das & Sons but after the death of said Sudhanshu Mohan, whenever the appellant enquired about Gold dealing licence, which was in the name of their father, the respondent no. 1 being the eldest brother told her (the appellant) that such Gold dealing licence was transferred in the names of all the heirs and legal representatives of late Sudhanshu Mohan. The appellant believing the statement of the respondent no. 1 being the eldest brother told her (the appellant) that such Gold dealing licence was transferred in the names of all the heirs and legal representatives of late Sudhanshu Mohan. The appellant believing the statement of the respondent no. 1 and in good faith did not make any further enquiry. The respondent no. 1 informed the appellant that sometime after the death of their father, the jewellery shop at 69, Chowranghee Rd. Would run as the main shop and the original shop at 81, Chowranghee Rd. (Subsequently 81B, Chowranghee Rd.) Would be treated and run as a branch of the said business M/s. Laxminarayan Das & Sons. In April 1987, some development took place in the family of the appellant’s mother when the respondent no. 1 disclosed that the income from the joint family properties was not handsome to give to other co-sharers including the appellant, raising suspicion in her mind. The appellant then wanted to see the accounts of the jewellery business from the respondent no. 1 to which he become annoyed and disclosed that the appellant did not have any share in the business though he (respondent no. 1) all along assured the appellant to give her share in the said business, as her name was included in the Gold Dealing Licence, as a legitimate shareholder in the jewellery business, left by her father. In January 20, 1988, the appellant requested the Dy. Collector Gold, Central Excise (Calcutta-1-collectorate) requesting him to intimate the names of the licence holders of the jewellery business under the name and style M/s. Laxminarayan Das & sons and in reply dt. April 20, 1988 by memo ND. 5/Gold/63/662, the appellant was informed that the said Gold dealing license was transferred in the name of respondent no. 1 as karta of the Hindu undivided family and thereafter it was further changed in the name of a Partnership Firm under the name & style “M/s. Laxminarayan Das & Sons at 69, Chowranghee Rd., Calcutta – 700 020 having its branch at 81B Chowranghee Rd. with the respondent no. 1 to 5 (namely Narayan, Swapan, Tapan, Jayanta & Sunil) as partners. Subsequently, on or about the 7th day of June 1988 the appellant received a Memo No. C. No. 5/Gold/63/1001 dt. with the respondent no. 1 to 5 (namely Narayan, Swapan, Tapan, Jayanta & Sunil) as partners. Subsequently, on or about the 7th day of June 1988 the appellant received a Memo No. C. No. 5/Gold/63/1001 dt. 7th June, 1988 by which the appellant was informed that the name of the appellant was not included in the list submitted before the concerned licensing authority. The Dept. Concerned intimated the appellant that all the legal heirs of the deceased Sudhanshu Mohan Das as karta of Hindu Undivided Family in accordance with the provisions of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and it was clear to her (appellant) that the authority concerned issued the purported licence to some of the heirs excluding all the female heirs of her father, in collusion with the male heirs and without making proper enquiry in the matter, leaving no alternative before the appellant but to take shelter of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta by way of filing a writ petition (Being No.– 8529) (W) 1988. The appellant had got share in the ancestral Jewellery business carried on by male respondents at 81B & 69, Chowranghee Rd. another two types of business under the name and style “Shilpa Jewellers” and “Sony Electronics” at Premises No. 69, Chowranghee Rd. She further claimed that she was entitled to have legitimate share of the income from the property described in Schedule ‘A’, other movable properties and business referred to in paras 10, 10A & 10B of the plaint of the original Suit. The appellant asked the respondents by serving a notice through her authorised advocate to give her legitimate share in the property, left by her father but inaction on the part of the respondents particularly the male respondents forced her to take shelter of the Court for seeking redress. A joint written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents (the defendants of the Original Suit and hereinafter referred to as the respondents). In the said written statement the respondents contended that the Suit was malafide, harassing and otherwise motivated. Denying the cause of action as averred in the body of the plaint the respondents challenged the suit on the point of its maintainability and other legal disabilities. The respondents further denied the factum of money lending business or any jewellery business under the name & style M/s. Laxminarayan Das and Ors. Denying the cause of action as averred in the body of the plaint the respondents challenged the suit on the point of its maintainability and other legal disabilities. The respondents further denied the factum of money lending business or any jewellery business under the name & style M/s. Laxminarayan Das and Ors. rather they contended that said Sudhanshu Mohan Das would carry on a gold dealing business under the name & style M/s. Sudhanshu Mohan Das who was never the owner of the said premises. The respondents in their joint written statement, stated that premises no. 81B, Chowranghee Rd. belonged to the respondent no. 8 Kamala Bala Das who acquired title of that premises by purchase. It was denied that Sudhanshu Mohan was a rich man or he died leaving all the properties described in the Scheduled ‘A’ to the plaint. Denying the averments of the plaint with regard to the respondent no. 1 as the only adult earning member of the family, they also denied that they started silver jewellery business under the name & satyle “Shilpa Jewellers” from the capital of the jewellery business and usufructs of the immovable properties or money lending business. The respondents also denied that the properties described in Schedule ‘B’ & ‘C’ were joint family properties. Denying all other material averments as stated in the body of the plaint of the Original Suit (i.e. Suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant), the contesting respondents denied that they would earn a considerable amount towards rent from the disputed premises referred to in the Scheduled ‘A’ to ‘C’ of the said plaint. The respondents in their joint written statement categorically stated that they started “Shilpa Jewellers” and “Sony Electronics”, were those business which were not started from the income of the properties left by Sudhanshu Mohan rather they started such business out of their own self-acquired properties. They further contended that they collected the Estate Duty clearance certificate from the concerned department, in respect of the properties left by Sudhanshu Mohan. The respondents also denied that the appellant had any legitimate share in the properties left by her father rather they stated that the appellant was given marriage sometime in 1969 and since then she was residing at Uttarpara and she was never been in joint possession of the properties left by her father Sudhanshu Mohan. The respondents also denied that the appellant had any legitimate share in the properties left by her father rather they stated that the appellant was given marriage sometime in 1969 and since then she was residing at Uttarpara and she was never been in joint possession of the properties left by her father Sudhanshu Mohan. The respondents further contended that they initially started a jewellery business under the name & style M/s. Laxminarayan Das & Grandsons with their small contribution of rupees five hundred each towards the capital in a partnership business at 69, Chowranghee Rd. The said partnership was dissolved after some time and another partnership business was started under the name & style Laxminarayan Das & Sons with the funds contributed by the brothers in equal share out of their own earnings. It is also revealed from the joint written statement that the respondent no. 1 to 7 started two other partnership business under the style “Shilpa Jewellers” & “Sony Electronics” with the contribution from their own earnings. Denying the share of the appellants and the respondents No. 8 to 14, it was stated in the said written statement that all of female respondents relinquished their claim in favour of the male ones and the appellant who had no contribution to the joint family business of the respondents or for the maintenance, preservation or protection of the premises at 69, Chowranghee Rd. or 13/1A Kundu Lane, she never had any right to claim partition in the property. In the joint written statement, the respondents also disclosed that the premises no 81B, Chowranghee Rd. belonged to the respondent no. 8 as her absolute property as she purchased the same in 1955 and the appellant in an earlier suit in respect of 81, Chowranghee Rd. relinquished her right and after partition between the co-sharers, this premises was renumbered at 81B, Chowranghee Rd. Denying all other material averments of the plaint of the original suit, the contesting respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the rival pleadings of the parties Ld. relinquished her right and after partition between the co-sharers, this premises was renumbered at 81B, Chowranghee Rd. Denying all other material averments of the plaint of the original suit, the contesting respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the rival pleadings of the parties Ld. Trial Court framed 6 issues altogether and decreed the suit in part in a preliminary form, the right title & interest of the appellant to the extent of 1/15th share in respect of the item no 1` & 3 of scheduled ‘A’ & 1/14th share in respect of the item no 1 of schedule ‘A’ property, subject to order in probate case. The parties are directed to effect partition amicably within 60 days from the date of such judgment keeping the possession of the parties intact as far as practicable, with a liberty to either of the parties to effect partition through Court. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Decree this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. It is not in dispute that the properties referred to in the Schedule A (1) & A (3) of the plaint originally belonged to Sudhanshu Mohan Das and the shares of the parties are candidly admitted by Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties. Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment categorically held and passed a decree in respect of these two plots having one-fifteenth share of each of the parties. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant in course of his long lasting argument emphatically submitted that his client was entitled to have equal share to that of the respondents i.e. the other off springs of Sudhanshu Mohan Das. He also pointed out that Sudhanshu Mohan died intestate leaving the parties to the suit and the property described in the schedule of the plaint being their ancestral properties and those should be equally divided between them. Drawing our attention to the schedule of the plaint of the original suit and the oral testimony of PW- 1, he pointed out that Ld. Trial Court was not correct in denying the share of the appellant in respect of the properties referred to in the schedule ‘B’ & ‘C’ of the plaint. He confidently urged that the appellant could establish the existence of joint family property left by her father Sudhanshu Mohan and opined that the appellant would be entitled to her legitimate share in those properties. He confidently urged that the appellant could establish the existence of joint family property left by her father Sudhanshu Mohan and opined that the appellant would be entitled to her legitimate share in those properties. In this context learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srinivas Krishna Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango & Others, reported in AIR 1954 at page 379, as quoted below:- “ ...Where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which form its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property.” Laying emphasis on the statement of Narayan Chandra Das (DW-1) dt. February 9, 2000, he further pointed out that the respondent no.1 in his examination in- chief (as DW-1) admitted the existence of business run under the name & style M/s. Sudhanshu Mohan Das at 81, Chowranghee Rd. and urged that such statement of the respondent no. 1 was sufficient to establish that the assets of the business of their father constituted joint nucleus for future business of the other co-sharers, started subsequently. To fortify his argument he relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chikkam Koreswar Rao Vs. Chikkam Subba & Others reported in 1970 (1) SCC 558 and opined that the entire evidence of the respondent no. 1 Narayan Chandra Das (DW-1) should be considered in a harmonised manner. Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the very outset, drew our attention to the claim of the appellant and admitted that all the parties to the suit were the legal heirs of Sudhanshu Mohan Das who died intestate leaving the properties in Schedule – A (1), A (2) & A (3) of the plaint but he categorically denied that the jewellery business of the respondents at 69, Chowranghee Rd. or 81B, Chowranghee Rd. were the joint family business or these were started with the capital left by Sudhanshu Mohan. or 81B, Chowranghee Rd. were the joint family business or these were started with the capital left by Sudhanshu Mohan. To advance his argument in this regard he submitted that the initial burden being upon the claimant to establish her claim that there was adequate nucleus out of which the business was started by the male respondents, subsequent to the death of Sudhanshu Mohan Das. Criticising the claim of the appellant he urged that the appellant produced certain documents collecting from the collectorate of Central Excise, Gold Cell, Calcutta – 1 collectorate to establish that the Jewellery business left by her father Sudhanshu Mohan was a joint family business and after the death of said Sudhanshu Mohan, his male off springs continued that business by way of deprivation of the female ones including the appellant, he opined that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of document in this context he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court reported in AIR 1969 Gujrat 270 & submitted with a confident tune that as the appellant failed to examine the author of the document to prove that document carries much evidentiary value for establishing her claim. Here, it is not in dispute that the appellant and the present respondents who are in total 14 in number are the legal heirs of Sudhanshu Mohan Das who died intestate leaving the properties, movable or immovable as the case may be. It is also not in dispute that the properties referred to in Schedule A (I) & A (3) of the plaint are the properties where they got one-fourteenth share each. It is evident from the materials on record that Kamala Bala Das, the widow of deceased Sudhanshu Mohan died during pendency of the Original Suit and before her death she executed a will in respect of the property referred to in the Schedule A (2) of the plaint. Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment categorically held that the appellant being the plaintiff of the Original Suit failed to establish her claim with regard to the joint nucleus of the properties referred to in Schedule A (4) to A (6) B & C of the plaint. It was held that the appellant failed to discharge her liability to establish that Sudhanshu Mohan had money lending business. It was held that the appellant failed to discharge her liability to establish that Sudhanshu Mohan had money lending business. She also failed to establish that her father had any business under the name & style M/s. Sudhanshu Mohan Das but the document (Ext. – 7) produced by none but the appellant during trial was otherwise (i.e. in the name of M/s. Laxminarayana Das & Sons). It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant claimed her share in respect of the shares in the business of the father but she never took any step for inspection or preservation of accounts nor she made any prayer for any accounts though she filed the suit in 1989 after a lapse of about 18 years from the date of death of her father and, I am afraid, it was drafted and conducted half heartedly and as a spectacular measure. Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment categorically discussed all these points and other relevant facts in issue and came to the finding that the appellant would be entitled to her share in the properties referred to in Schedule A (I) & A (3) and A (2), subject to the decision of the probate case. When none but the appellant and 13 respondents are the offsprings of Sudhanshu Mohan and Kamalabala, they will be entitled to one-fourteenth share each in the properties referred to in the impugned judgment and not to the extent of one – fifteenth share each of Schedule A (1) & A (3) of the plaint, as decided by Ld. Trial Court. The appeal is thus decided and disposed of with this minor modification and the findings of Ld. Trial Court thus stand affirmed. Parties do bear their respective costs of appeal. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the L.C.R. of T.S. No. 44 of 2006 be sent to Ld. Trial Court immediately for finality of the partition suit by effecting such partition by metes and bounds in terms of direction of Ld. Trial Court and for drawing up final decree consequently. I agree,