JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. This appeal is by defendants 2 to 8 against a reversing judgment. 2. Parties are related in the manner indicated below :- Kuladhar Dharani Mahidhar Katu Baidei D.1 Jagannath Srinath D.6 Dasraathi D.7 Rahas D.8 Jaimani D.2 Draupati P.1 Rukmani P.1/Ka. Basudev P.1/Kha Harsamani P.1/Ga. Ghasiani D.3 Keshana D.4 Tima D.5 Sita Chitra D.9 Biranchi D.10 Purna D.10/Kha Ankura D.10/Ga 3. Case of the plaintiff is that Kuladhar Behera was the common ancestor of the parties. He died leaving behind him three sons, namely, Dharani, Mahidhar and Katu. They are dead. Plaintiff is the son of Dharani. Defendant nos. 1 to 8 represent the branch of Mahidhar. Defendant nos. 9 and 10 represent the branch of Katu. The suit properties described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint were not partitioned. The plaintiff and his co-sharers were in possession of the same by amicable arrangement. While the plaintiff was living in jointness, he left for Rengali to eke out his livelihood. During agricultural season he used to come to the village each year. The suit properties have been jointly recorded in the names of the Mahidhar and Katu. On his return from Rengali, he demanded for partition. As the defendants did not agree to it, he filed the suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share. 4. Defendant nos. 2 to 9 filed a written statement. The plea of the defendants was that after death of their father, Kuladhar, there was a complete partition of the suit properties amongst his three sons. The plaintiff left for Rengali 16 years back after selling the lands to Jagannath, husband of defendant no.2 for a consideration of Rs.3,800/-. Since then Jagannath and after his death, defendant nos.2 to 5 are in possession of the said land. The plaintiff returned from Rengali and asked defendant nos. 2 to 5 to take Rs.3,800/- and return his property. They did not agree. He convened a Panchayat. They took further plea that they have acquired right by way of adverse possession over the lands sold by Budhu. Defendant no.10 and another filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. Defendant no.11 also filed a separate written statement stating that he was in possession of a piece of Goda land measuring A0.32 dec. appertaining to plot no.66 under khata no.4/35 on thika basis under the plaintiff. He used to pay him Rs.15/- annually. Defendant no.10 and another filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. Defendant no.11 also filed a separate written statement stating that he was in possession of a piece of Goda land measuring A0.32 dec. appertaining to plot no.66 under khata no.4/35 on thika basis under the plaintiff. He used to pay him Rs.15/- annually. After death of Budhu, he is paying at that rate to the plaintiff-1/Kha. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the suit, Budhu, plaintiff died, whereafter his widow, plaintiff no.1 and his two daughters, plaintiff 1/Ka and 1/Ga and his son Basu, plaintiff 1/Kha have been substituted. Similarly after the death of defendant no.10, his heirs have been substituted as D.10/Ka, D.10/Kha and D.10/Ga. 5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed seven issues, out of which, issue nos.4 and 5 are pivotal. The same are : “(4) Was there a prior complete partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds ? (5) Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession ?” 6. The learned trial judge recorded the findings on both the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs filed T.A.No.20 of 1985 in the court of the learned District Judge, Keonjhar. The learned appellate court came to hold that there was no partition by metes and bounds. The same is still continued to be joint. The defendants have not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 7. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : “(vi) Whether on the admitted facts the properties are possessed separately for over 60 years, the usufructs therefrom appropriate separately, when the parties are living separately, the conclusion was inexcapable that the partition is complete by mutual bounds. (vii) Whether having regard to Ext.A series in which admittedly there was sole interest and consolidation passed and Jagannath was in continuance uninterrupted possession, whether the learned Appellate Judge was right in coming to hold that adverse possession has not been established and the payment of amount to Buddu are immaterial.” 8. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Sr. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants. None appeared for the respondents. 9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellants submitted that there is ample evidence on record that the co-sharers were in possession of the properties for last sixty years. They were separately dealing with their properties. The learned appellate court committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in ignoring Exts.A, A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4. Those documents having been admitted, further proof of its due execution can be dispensed with so as not to render it invalid for want of explaining the contents of the documents to the executant by reading it over to him. The learned appellate court erroneously arrived at a conclusion that document had not been properly proved. There was a complete partition by metes and bounds. The defendants have perfected title by way of adverse possession. He further contended that the learned appellate court wrongly interpreted the decision of this Court in the case of Dukhi Dibya and others v. Landi Dibya and another, AIR 1978 Ori 181. 10. In Kalyani (dead) by L.Rs. v. Narayanan and others, AIR 1980 SC 1173 , the apex Court held thus : “10.……Partition is a word of technical import in Hindu law. Partition in one sense is a severance of joint status and coparcener of a coparcenary is entitled to claim it as a matter of his individual volition. In this narrow sense all that is necessary to constitute partition is a definite and unequivocal indication of his intention by a member of a joint family to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. Such an unequivocal intention to separate brings about a disruption of joint family status, at any rate, in respect of separating member or members and thereby puts an end to the coparcenary with right of survivorship and such separated member holds from the time of disruption of joint family as tenant-in-common. Such partition has an impact on devolution of shares of such members. It goes to his heirs displacing survivorship. Such partition has an impact on devolution of shares of such members. It goes to his heirs displacing survivorship. Such partition irrespective of whether it is accompanied or followed by division of properties by metes and bounds covers both a division of right and division of property (see Approviar v. Rama Subha Aiyan, (1886) 11 Moo Ind App 76 (PC) quoted with approval in Smt. Krishnabai Bhritar Ganpatrao v. Appasaheb Tuljaramarao (1979) 4 SCC 60 at p.68 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1880 ). A disruption of joint family status by a definite and unequivocal indication to separate implies separation in interest and in right, although not immediately followed by a de facto actual division of the subject-matter. This may at any time, be claimed by virtue of the separate right (see Girja Bai v. Sadashiv 443 Ind App 151 : ( AIR 1916 PC 104 ). A physical and actual division of property by metes and bounds follows from disruption of status and would be termed partition in a broader sense.” 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dukhi Dibya (supra) quoted with approval an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Jeyakrishna Sahu v. Parameshwar Sahu, 24 (1958) CLT 430, where it was held : “When the parties have been possessing lands separately for a long time, and further when they are exercising acts of ownership in respect of those lands, the courts of fact are competent enough to give proper weight to such circumstances and come to the conclusion of completed partition.” 12. Learned appellate court scrutinized the evidence and came to hold that P.W.1, the plaintiff deposed that the properties have not been partitioned by metes and bounds but they are possessing the properties separately by way of amicable arrangement. His father had not alienated the land to Jagannath. He gave one piece of Goda land to defendant no.11 on thika basis. D.W.2, a co-villager, in his evidence has stated that the properties have not been partitioned. Defendant no.2 has been examined as D.W.1. She stated that she married at the age of 16. By that time Dharani, Mahidhar and Katu were possessing the suit properties separately. P.Ws.2 and 3, co-villagers, stated that there was a partition of the suit properties amongst Dharani, Mahidhar and Katu 60 years back. P.W.2 was fifty years old, when he was examined as witness. She stated that she married at the age of 16. By that time Dharani, Mahidhar and Katu were possessing the suit properties separately. P.Ws.2 and 3, co-villagers, stated that there was a partition of the suit properties amongst Dharani, Mahidhar and Katu 60 years back. P.W.2 was fifty years old, when he was examined as witness. He stated that partition took place sixty years back. He had no personal knowledge regarding partition. In examination in-chief, he stated that he did not know about the partition of the suit properties. He stated that the parties were possessing the properties by amicable partition. In the subsequent sentence, he stated that he did not know if there was partition by metes and bounds. Thus, taking into consideration of his evidence in entirety, the conclusion was that the parties were possessing the suit properties separately by amicable arrangement, but there was no partition by metes and bounds. From the evidence of D.Ws.1, 2 & 3, it cannot be said that there was a complete partition. D.Ws.1 & 2 had no knowledge. D.W.3, in his evidence, has stated that partition took place sixty years back. He was present at the time of partition. One document was prepared in support of the partition. He along with the parties put their signatures. The learned appellate court disbelieved the evidence on the ground that no such document was filed. Placing reliance on Dukhi Dibya (supra), it held that there was no partition by metes and bounds of the suit properties amongst the sons of Kuladhar and the same is still continued to be joint. There is no perversity in the findings of the learned trial court. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. A priori, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Consequently, the suit is dismissed. No costs.