JUDGMENT D. DASH, J - The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 of Title Suit No. 179 of 1992 of the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Cuttack have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1995 and dated 30.08.1995 respectively passed therein. The respondent No.1, as the plaintiff, had filed the above noted suit with the following reliefs:- “28. Xx xx xx a. That the preliminary decree be passed under sale deed, dated 18.01.1969 and 08.04.1991 and acquisition of his branches share by amicable partition deed dated 15.03.1990 or such share as the Court lawfully determines to be the legal share of the plaintiff; b. That on a preliminary decree for partition of plaintiff’s share or whatever share determined by the Court in respect of Schedule-‘A’ property, a Civil Court Commissioner be appointed to carve out the same at the spot and plaintiff be allotted his share keeping his present possession in tact as far as practicable; c. That on acceptance of Commissioner’s report, the final decree be passed and plaintiff be given delivery of possession through the process of Court and the non-allottees be evicted therefrom those who were/are in permissible possession; d. That in the alternative if the Court finally determines that acquisition of the plaintiffs as determined by the Court requires payment of any advalorem Court fees, the plaintiff undertakes to pay such additional Court fees as determined by the Court; e. That a permanent injunction be passed maintaining plaintiff’s possession as he is possessed of at present and the defendants be restrained from interfering from the said possession till passing of final decree and delivery of possession through Court and thereafter they be restrained not to interfere in his possession in respect of allotment given to him; f. That any other relief to which the plaintiff is entitled to be also decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; and g. That the cost of the suit be also decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” The trial Court has decreed the suit in part on contest preliminary against the appellants (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) and the respondent No. 16 (defendant No. 4) and ex parte against the rest of the respondent-defendants without cost. 2. 1 to 3) and the respondent No. 16 (defendant No. 4) and ex parte against the rest of the respondent-defendants without cost. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial Court. 3.(a) In order to show the inter se relationship of the parties, the plaintiff has provided the following table: Hussain Khan Bale Kanhu Amiran(Died issueless) Maina(Died issueless) Amina (D.10) = Kabir Khan Ayesa (D.11) =Azam Khan Suleman =Puti Bibi (D.12) Mohammad D.13 Ramjan D.14 Khalil D.15 Jalil D.16 Aziz(Plff) Ruksana D.18 Sarifun D.17 =Sk. Bona =Sk. Azmat Ahamad =Mariam Kariam Khan Tuku Bibi =Sk. Dukha Jina Bibi =Sk. Azmat Idan (D.1) Adoptive daughter Sk. Juma =Piran Bibi D.5) Basir D.6 Dhuma D.7 Begum D.8 Juma Beg Rahim (died bachelor) Chand Bibi D.2 Samsun D.4 Kulsom D.3 (b) As per the plaintiff’s case, the parties are Sunni Muslims and are as such governed by the Mohammedian law. It is the plaintiff’s case that one Hussain Khan, who has been shown as the keystone of the genealogy arch, was the owner of the suit property. Hussain died leaving behind two sons and two daughters. Plaintiff is the grandson of one of the sons of Hussain, namely, Kanhu. The defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the granddaughters of another son of Hussain, namely, Bale. (c) It is stated that in the settlement record of the year 1931, the suit property stood recorded in the name of Bale, Kanhu, Amiran Bibi and Kaina Bibi. Amiran and Kaina having died without any issue, the properties came to be shared by two sons of Hussain, namely, Bale and Kanhu in equal half. On the death of Bale, his two sons and daughters, namely, Ahamad, Karim, Tuku and Jina inherited his half share. Ahamad and his wife Mariam are dead leaving no issue of their own. Karim Khan died leaving behind three daughters (defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4) and he had also a minor son, namely, Rahim, who died as a bachelor. Tuku Bibi, the daughter of Bale died leaving behind Juma and defendant nos. 6 to 8. Widow of Juma is defendant No.5. the daughter of Bale, Namely, Jina died leaving behind her son, who is the defendant No.9. 2, 3 and 4) and he had also a minor son, namely, Rahim, who died as a bachelor. Tuku Bibi, the daughter of Bale died leaving behind Juma and defendant nos. 6 to 8. Widow of Juma is defendant No.5. the daughter of Bale, Namely, Jina died leaving behind her son, who is the defendant No.9. (d) It is the further case of the plaintiff that Ahamad Khan, during his life time, sold some property described in Schedule-‘B’ of the plaint to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 18.01.1969. The extent of the land so purchased is stated to be Ac. 0.020 decimals being paid with the consideration of Rs. 800/-. It is further stated that pursuant to the said sale, possession of the land in question had been delivered to the plaintiff as it was in possession of Ahamad as per the earlier arrangement with other members of the family. The plaintiff claims to have put up boundary wall on all sides of the said land and constructed a double storied building having mutated the land in question his name. It is further stated that since that time onwards, the plaintiff is paying the land revenue to the State as also the building having been assigned with a holding, he has been paying holding tax to the municipal authority all through. It is stated that during the hal settlement operation; the measurement being done in the field, extent having been found to be Ac. 0.24 decimals, the same has been recorded in his name, better described in Schedule –‘B’ land. (e) It is the further case of the plaintiff that Kanhu Khan, the younger brother of Bale is dead leaving behind two daughters, namely, Amina Bibi and Ayesa Bibi (defendant no. 10 and 11). He had a son, namely, Suleman whose wife has been arraigned as a party to the suit as defendant No. 12 and her five sons and two daughters are the defendant No. 13 to 18 and the plaintiff. It is stated that Kanhu was possessing his separate property in Buxi Bazar. In an amicable partition effected between his widow, sons, daughters and his sister, defendant nos. It is stated that Kanhu was possessing his separate property in Buxi Bazar. In an amicable partition effected between his widow, sons, daughters and his sister, defendant nos. 10 to 18 were allotted with that separate property at Buxi Bazar wherein the plaintiff was not given any share and in lieu of that, he was given the entire share of Kanhu over the patch of land measuring Ac. 0.031.5 kadis (half share of Kanhu). This is said to have been done by registered deed of partition dated 15.03.1990. the land coming to the hands of the plaintiff under such partition has been described in Schedule-‘C’ of the plaint which is jointly recorded in a separate khata along with other shareholders. This land is said to be not within the land as described in Schedule-‘B’ but it is a part of property; described in Schedule-‘A’. It is stated that heirs of Tuku Bibi, i.e., defendant No. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 jointly sold land measuring Ac. 0.10.5 kadis to the plaintiff by registered sale deed 8.4.1991, separately described in Schedule-‘D’ of the plaint which forms part of the land described in Schedule-‘A’. The plaintiff thus claims to have in total acquired Schedule –‘A’ property measuring Ac. 0.062 decimals of land under two sale deeds as also in that partition evidenced by a deed of to that effect. It is his case that he has been in possession of those lands, even though the parties have earlier not been allotted with specific parcels of land in any partition. (f) It is the case of the plaintiff that the status of the parties being Darpattadar in respect of the land standing recorded under Khata No. 420 under Pattadari Khata No. 412 belonging to Jagatananda Mohapatra and others, who were the tenants under the superior landlord or Intermediary Ganeshlal Pandit Ist part Khewat (No.8), the parties were paying rent to the members of said Mohapatra family, who in turn were paying rent to the intermediary. (g) The plaintiff asserts that by a registered sale deed dated 14.08.1944, one Abdul Raheman Khan, son of Hussain Khan had transferred his interest to Ahamad Khan, son of Bale Khan, the land measuring Ac. (g) The plaintiff asserts that by a registered sale deed dated 14.08.1944, one Abdul Raheman Khan, son of Hussain Khan had transferred his interest to Ahamad Khan, son of Bale Khan, the land measuring Ac. 0.55 decimals towards his share in Pattadari Khata No. 412 and for collection of rent as the said right to collect had been allotted to him in earlier partition suit, i.e. T.S. No. 507 of 1929 on the file of Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack (as it was then). So, it is said that Ahamad Khan became the Pattadar and the right under Darpattadari having merged with the Pattadari right, he has the right to possess the property as allotted towards his share in that Darpattadari Khata. The defendant Nos. 2 to 4, who are the daughters of Karim Khan, were residing in an old house towards back side of Schedule-‘A’ land as per the amicable arrangement. Dissention having arisen regarding division of the property sometime in the month of December, 1991, a panchayati had been convened. It is stated that under duress, the plaintiff had signed on a Faisalanama as also the maps whereby three sisters (daughters of Karim) were allowed to stay in the old house and the plaintiff was compelled to provide a passage of two feet width leading thereto for the user of the house by those three sisters (defendant nos. 2 and 4). It is stated that the contents of the said Faisalanama was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff and it had been taken by force and he had been made to sign thereon. The defendant nos. 2 to 4 are now claiming the property to have been gifted to them by Ahamad as has been consented to by the plaintiff. This claim is attacked by the plaintiff as wholly untenable. The plaintiff, however, admits that defendant nos. 2 to 4 have a share as per their inheritance but it is not under the so called gift. (h) It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he has acquired the ownership over the land measuring Ac. 0.062 decimals and is in possession of the same. The plaintiff, however, admits that defendant nos. 2 to 4 have a share as per their inheritance but it is not under the so called gift. (h) It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he has acquired the ownership over the land measuring Ac. 0.062 decimals and is in possession of the same. It is alleged that Idan Bibi, the appellant No.1 claiming to be the adopted daughter of Ahamad Khan and his wife Mariam Bibi, who had no issue of their own by taking advantage of the help provided to her out of compassion by allowing her to reside in one thatched room on the other side of Schedule-‘A’ property is staking false claim over the same and has thus come to be in litigating terms with the plaintiff. It is further stated that during Mariam’s illness, the appellant was brought by her and she stayed with Mariam. Therefore, even after her death, she has been continuing to occupy the house. When thereafter she created disturbance with the possession of the land by the plaintiff by bringing defendant Nos. 2 to 4 to her side, the suit has been filed. (i) It is the plaintiff’s positive case that Idan Bibi, the defendant No.1 has been claiming to be the beneficiary under a Will said to have been executed by Mariam Bibi widow of Ahmad Khan in respect of the resdue in the hands of Ahmad Khan from out of purchased land under registered sale deed dated 14.8.1944; land measuring Ac. 0.055 decimals. After exclusion of the area of land gifted to Chand Bibi and her sisters or to their father, namely, Karim to an extent of Ac. 0.017-4 kadis. It is further stated that balance of Ac. 0.037-6 kadis of land was enjoyed by Mariam, which she has willed away in favour of Idan, that Idan is also entitled to as the adoptive daughter which now she is claiming. 4.(a) The defendant nos. 1 to 4 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. While traversing the plaint averments, although they have not admitted the genealogical tree given by the plaintiff in clear terms, yet have not projected anything specific, touching/questioning/ disputing the status of all those persons named therein as also have not shown/stated in any other manner. 1 to 4 contested the suit by filing a joint written statement. While traversing the plaint averments, although they have not admitted the genealogical tree given by the plaintiff in clear terms, yet have not projected anything specific, touching/questioning/ disputing the status of all those persons named therein as also have not shown/stated in any other manner. It is their specific case that property was Bajyapti Sthitiban in the name of Ganesh Lal Pandit 1st Part Khewat (no.8). They stayed with Jogi Barik, Joyakrishna Mohapatra, Abdul Rahiman Khan, Sk. Babua Karim Khan and Sk. Ujit Mohammad were the pattadars. Bale Khan and Kanhu Khan, Amiran Bibi and Maina Bibi were the Darpattadars in respect of Sabik Khata No. 420 as per the records of 1937 settlement. Dispute having arisen amongst Jogi Barik and other recorded persons as above, it is stated that in respect of the property measuring Ac. 3.842 decimals, Jogi Barik, Abdul Rahiman Khan, Karim Khan and Sk. Ujiri had gone for a partition suit, i.e., Partition Suit No. 507 of 1929 against Jagatananda Mohapatra, Jagadish Mohapatra, Jayakrishna Mohapatra and Sk. Habua. Abdul Rahaman having two two annas 7 paise and half interest share in the property, that has been allotted in the final decree and accordingly he was delivered with the possession of the said allotted land in terms of the final decree. Thus, it is said that this suit land i.e., Schedule-‘A’ had fallen to the share of Abdul Rehaman Khan, the vendor of Ahemad Khan, who happens to be father of defendant no. 1. Preliminary decree in the suit had been passed when ROR of 1931 settlement had already been passed. It is said that for that reason, the result of the suit could not get duly reflected in the said ROR, which thus was not in tune with said suit’s result. Bale Khan, Kanhu Khan, Amiran Bibi and Maina Bibi were not parties in that suit. Said Abdul Raheman Khan thus got the pattadair right of Bale and Kanhu Khan in respect of Khata No. 420 measuring Ac. 0.55 decimals out of Ac. 0.63 decimals. So, it is said that Darpattadari rights of Bale Khan, Kanhu Khan, Amran Bibi and Maina Bibi have been extinguished. It is stated that they had never raised any objection to the same at any point of time. 0.55 decimals out of Ac. 0.63 decimals. So, it is said that Darpattadari rights of Bale Khan, Kanhu Khan, Amran Bibi and Maina Bibi have been extinguished. It is stated that they had never raised any objection to the same at any point of time. In view of the above, the maintainability of the instant suit for partition is attached contending that there remains no scope for partition for Schedule-‘A’ land again. Abdul Rehman Khan, while possessing the land under Darpattaari Khata, paid rent to the intermediary and his name was mutated in the Zamindary estate of Ganesh Lal Pandit and a separate khata bearig Khata No. 412/6 was maintained. It is thus said that the plaintiff now cannot claim that Darpattadari right in respect of the land as was with his predecessors. The land is said to be Bajayapti Sthitiban land of Abdul Rehman who has validly alienated the same in favour of Abdul Rehman Khan on 07.09.1944. Thus the same being Abdul Rehman Khan’ separate property, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 claim that the same is not liable for partition. (b) Alternatively, it is that even assuming the property to be the joint family property of Ahmed Khan and the ancestors of the plaintiff, the sharing interest of Ahmed Khan does not extend to Ac. 0.20 decimals for which the property measuring Ac. 0.35 decimals in any view of the matter has to remain in the hands of defendant nos. 1 to 4. 5. The trial Court, on the above rival case projected by the parties, has framed as many as ten issues, which are as under: “ISSUES 1. Is the suit as laid maintainable? 2. Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file the suit? 3. Was there a Panchayat and if defendants 2, 3 and 4 were allotted any share by the Panchayat decision? 4. Did the plaintiff voluntarily take part in the Panchayat and signed in the Panchayat decision and map? 5. If the regd. Sale deed dtd. 18.1.69 and 8.4.91 are valid and the plaintiff got any title over the land covered under those sale deeds? 6. If there was any partition interse between the plaintiff, her mother, brothers and sisters in respect of his 8 annas share? 7. If the regd. Partition deed dtd. 15..90 is valid, legal and has acted upon? 8. Sale deed dtd. 18.1.69 and 8.4.91 are valid and the plaintiff got any title over the land covered under those sale deeds? 6. If there was any partition interse between the plaintiff, her mother, brothers and sisters in respect of his 8 annas share? 7. If the regd. Partition deed dtd. 15..90 is valid, legal and has acted upon? 8. If the suit property is darpatadari and if the purchase of patadari right by regd. Sale deed 14.8.44 altered the status of the parties and changed the share of the parties? 9. If Idan Bibi has any share over the suit land if her possession is permissive? 10. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?” 6. The trial Court, as it appears has rightly gone to decide issue nos. 5,7,8 and 9 together as those are intertwined in such a manner that not only there remains grave risk of repetition but also it may so happen that confusion may arise in course of discussion in case they are so taken up for decision separately. On analysis of evidence, both oral and documentary let in by the parties, the trial Court’s ultimate findings are on the score that:- i) Ahemad Khan inherited Ac. 0.010.5 kadis of land fromBale and she sold Ac. 0.020 decimals by an excess of Ac. 0.009.5 kadis. So, the sale under Ext. 1 in favour of the plaintiff is invalid to the extent of Ac. 0.009.5 kadis and it operates is over the land measuring Ac. 0.010.5 kadis as described in Schedule-‘B’. It has been said that the plaintiff has validly acquired land measuring Ac. 0.052.5 kadis under two sale deeds, dated 18.1.1969 (Ext.1) and dated 8.4.1991 (Ext.3) and in the partition as evidenced by the registered partition deed dated 10.3.1990 (Ext.2). ii. Having held so, the trial Court has gone to discuss the evidence as regards the status of defendant no. 1, as adoptive daughter of Ahemad Khan and his wife Mariam as claimed by her and denied by the plaintiff and other defendants. Taking note of the position of Mohammedian Law to which the concept of adoption is totally foreign, the trial Court has proceeded to examine the evidence on record mostly the documentary as proved from the side of defendant No. 1 The conclusion has been against the case of adoption as projected by defendant No. 1. Taking note of the position of Mohammedian Law to which the concept of adoption is totally foreign, the trial Court has proceeded to examine the evidence on record mostly the documentary as proved from the side of defendant No. 1 The conclusion has been against the case of adoption as projected by defendant No. 1. The consequential finding thus has been rendered that she is not entitled to get any property involved in the suit being unconnected with the family. iii. On the other facts, touching the aspect that the suit land was Darpattadari as per the ROR of 1932 settlement (Ext. 7) answer has been recorded favouring the plaintiff’s case on that score. iv. Findings on the rest of the issues have practically followed the suit leading to pass the impugned decree in favour of the plaintiff. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants, while attacking the above findings, submitted that in view of the decree dated 16.07.1931 passed in T.S. No. 507 of 1929, Abdul Rehman Khan had been allotted with the property including the suit property which specifically measures Ac. 0.63 decimals out of plot No. 420 and having taken the same into his possession, had got mutated under the intermediary Ganeshlal Pandit, the then Khewatdar with the record of right being issued under Bajyapti sthitiban status. He contended that this fact which important has been totally lost sight of by the trial Court. It was submitted that the above right having been accrued in respect of the suit land in favour of Abdul Rehman Khan in the year 1932, it was never challenged and Ahmed Khan has purchased Ac. 0.55 decimals from him and remained in possession till his death by constructing a thatched house over there and after him, his widow Mariam Bibi and the defendant No. 1, who was brought up by them, kept in their house from the 21st day of her birth and she continued to stay there by paying rent and holding tax to the State and Municipality respectively. It was further submitted that the right, title and interest of Mariam Bibi and this defendant No. 1 has never been stood extinguished and the findings of the trial Court on the factual aspect concerning issue Nos. It was further submitted that the right, title and interest of Mariam Bibi and this defendant No. 1 has never been stood extinguished and the findings of the trial Court on the factual aspect concerning issue Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9 are unsustainable both on fact as law in asmuch the trial Court has not examined the evidence both oral and documentary on record properly in arriving at the conclusions. He submitted that in view of overwhelming evidence on record, the sale deeds dated 15.3.1990 and 8.4.1991 ought to have been adjudged by the trial Court as forged and fabricated documents having no value in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the appellants, moving the petition under Order 47 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayed that it is a fit case where the appellants should be permitted to lead additional evidence in proving the will executed by Mariam Bibi in favour of defendant No. 1. He submitted that said document, although was filed in the trial Court, had not been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit for being read as evidence in that suit, during the time when the defendant No. 1 led evidence and thereafter at a later stage, the trial Court though was moved to allow the defendant No. 1 in building that part of her case proving the document, the Court below has rejected the same which is wholly erroneous. According to him, the order of the trial Court refusing to permit the defendant No. 1 to adduce further evidence for proving the Will is an error which has affected the decision on the issues framed in the case and, therefore, this appellate Court should look into the matter from proper legal perspective and accordingly pass appropriate order allowing the appellant to lead further evidence by proving the said Will standing in her favour covering the subject matter and for the purpose, the suit need be remanded to the Court below for rendering the decisions on all the issues afresh. First of all going to reply the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in moving the application under Order 47 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned counsel for the respondents referring to the finding of the trial Court on the factual aspect of the case as regards the property remaining in the hands of Ahemad Khan submitted that in case that finding is affirmed, the prayer made in the petition being viewed with it’s the purpose would be redundant. He submitted that the Will, which is sought to be proved is purported to have been executed by Mariam and if the findings stands accepted that Ahemad Khan has already sold his share of land during his lifetime, the Will even if stands proved in all respect in favour of defendant No. 1, would be of no consequence and can have no such affect/impact upon the decision in the suit. He also submitted that the concept of adoption being foreign to the Mohammadian Law, all these stands have no legal sanction from their inception. It was submitted that this Will even on a plain reading go to show that the property had been bequeathed by Mariam in favour of her adoptive daughter and in case of a finding that the defendant No. 1 does not carry the status of the adoptive daughter of Ahemad Khan and Mariam, she cannot derive any benefit from out of the so called Will even if it accepted for a moment to have been duly executed by Mariam bequeathing the properties. Learned counsel for the newly substituted respondents (LRs of respondent No.1) submitted that as per the record of right (Ext. 7), the property was in the name of Bale Khan, Kanhu Khan, Amiran Bibi and Maina Bibi and out of them, Amiran Bibi and Maina Bibi died issue less and so, Bale and Kanhu finally got half and half. He submitted that the trial Court has rightly held that in a partition, in between the members of the branch of Kanhu Khan, the plaintiff, one of the sons of Suleman son of Kanhu Khan, got 31.5 decimals of land as per that registered partition deed dated 15.03.1990 (Ext. 2), which has been duly proved and its authenticity can never be doubted and this is in respect of Kanhu Khan’s share. It was submitted that Bale Khan share of Ac. 2), which has been duly proved and its authenticity can never be doubted and this is in respect of Kanhu Khan’s share. It was submitted that Bale Khan share of Ac. 0.31.5 decimals was inherited by Ahemad, Karim, Tuku and Jina, who are the sons and daughters of Bale. So, Ahemad from out of the above, was entitled to Ac. 0.10.5 decimals and Karim to the equal extent whereas Tuku and Jina jointly to the said extent. He further submitted that the heirs of Tuku and Jina, who are defendant nos. 5 to 9, have sold their share of Ac. 0.10.5 decimals to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 08.04.1991 (Ext.3). This sale deed has also been proved and no such evidence is there on record to discard its execution as also its legal validity and coming into effect. The Trial Court has not at committed any error in recording said finding in favour of the plaintiff. He further submitted that the trial Court has therefore, rightly held the sale deed (Ext.1) executed by Ahemad Khan to be valid to the extent to 10.5 decimals, which is the share of Ahemd Khan. In this way, it was submitted that the plaintiff’s entitlement under those documents comes to Ac. 0.52 decimal has been rightly found by the trial Court. While further saying that entitlement of the branch of Karim Khan (defendant nos. 2 to 4) comes to Ac. 0.010.5 decimals when the entitlement of the plaintiff as well as defendant nos. 2 to 4, being added rightly, comes to ;Ac. 0.063 decimals. It was his submission that the Court below has rightly negated the claim of defendant No. 1 as the adopted daughter of Ahemad Khan and his wife Mariam Bibi having no sanction in law as also to be without any such acceptable evidence in so far as the factual aspect part of it is concerned. He submitted that only on the basis of evidence, if any property can be said to have remained in the hands of Ahmed Khan, then only Mariam Bibi would have inherited the same, which is also not the case here since Ahemad Khan nothing left out in his hands by the time when he died after having sold the land of his share by registered sale deed dated 18.1.1969 (Ext.1). He, therefore, submitted that the findings of the trial Court when are based on just and proper appreciation of evidence keeping in view the settled position of law and examining in the backdrop of the rival case of the parties, those are not at liable to be interfered with. He submitted that even this Court, by going through examination of evidence, on factual aspect would not be persuaded to take a view other than what has been taken by the trial Court. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of this appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 8. Proceeding to judge the sustainability of the findings of the trial Court, bestowing consideration in the light of the rival submission, it is seen that the plaintiff has proved the registered sale deed dated 18.1.1969 executed by Ahemad Khan, son of Bale which has been admitted in evidence and marked Ext. 1. The said sale is in relation to the land measuring Ac. 0.020 decimals which has been described in Schedule-‘B’. There is no evidence on record to doubt the authenticity of this document and no such evidence is also there to eschew this Ext. 1 from consideration for any such other reasons. The oral evidence let in by the plaintiff is wholly acceptable on this score that pursuant to the said purchase, he possessed the said land in question, constructed house and has been paying rent and holding tax to the State and Municipal Authority respectively. The trial Court, upon due application of mind, has rightly come to conclude that said sale is valid only to the extent of 10 ½ decimals which was the share of the vendor. Similarly, on going through the evidence let in by the plaintiff, it is seen that the registered partition deed dated 15.3.1990 has also been duly proved. There is no evidence to disbelieve this deed of partition, which is a registered one and also there is no evidence to say that such partition was never acted upon. Under this partition, the plaintiff has got Ac. 0.031.5 decimals of land which has been described in Schedule-‘C’ of the plaint. Evidence on record reveals that by registered sale deed dated 8.4.1991(Ext.3), the defendant Nos. 5 to 9 have sold Ac. 0.010.5 decimals to the plaintiff as described in schedule-‘D’. Under this partition, the plaintiff has got Ac. 0.031.5 decimals of land which has been described in Schedule-‘C’ of the plaint. Evidence on record reveals that by registered sale deed dated 8.4.1991(Ext.3), the defendant Nos. 5 to 9 have sold Ac. 0.010.5 decimals to the plaintiff as described in schedule-‘D’. The trial Court has noticed no such infirmity in all these three registered documents. It is not the case of defendant nos. 1 to 4 that the plaintiff got schedule-‘D’ land and Ac. 0.031.5 decimals from joint family property of the parties in lieu of the property in the cantonment regiment. The documentary evidence clearly reveal that Bale Khan, Amir and Maina were the Darpattadars having such right and the Pattadars were Jayakrushna Mohapatra, Jagatananda Mohapatra, Sk. Habua, Karim Khan and Sk. Ujir Mehammad and were collecting the rent from the Darpattadars and onward paying to the intermediary Ganeshlal Pandit, 1st Part Khewart No.8. It is not in dispute that Amiran and Maina Bibi died issueless and therefore, Ac. 0.063 decimals of land on devolved Bale and Kanhu equally. In view of the acceptance of the registered document which are the sale deeds and deed of partition on the face of the position of old record of right, I am wholly in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court that there was no resdue property in the hands of Ahemad Khan so as to be inherited by Mariam Bibi upon the death of her husband. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents at this stage is not acceptable since the prayer made in the petition is wholly redundant and even if it is allowed, it would serve absolutely no useful purpose for the case of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as that very Will now does not carry the value worth the paper written on. The textarix having no property and during the lifetime of testatrix or the properties in entirety or part having not gone to her hand through any other legal mode whatsoever, the Will is of absolutely of no benefit to the defendant No.1. 1 to 4 as that very Will now does not carry the value worth the paper written on. The textarix having no property and during the lifetime of testatrix or the properties in entirety or part having not gone to her hand through any other legal mode whatsoever, the Will is of absolutely of no benefit to the defendant No.1. For all the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has committed error in rejecting the said petition filed by the defendant No. 1 after the hearing before the judgment pales into insignificance and thus the petition under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code stands rejected and the I.A. No. 286 of 2018 is dismissed. When from the evidence, it is seen that Ahemad Khan alienated his entire share which he had inherited after the death of Bale, even if the case of the defendant No. 1 is accepted that she is the adopted daughter of Ahemad and Mariam, the same practically does not yield any result in her favour, However, going to examine the sustainability of the finding on that issue as regards the claim of defendant No. 1 to be the daughter of Ahemad Khan and Mariam, first of all it is seen that the written statement does not find any mention in clear terms that defendant No.1 is the adopted daughter of Ahemad and Mariam. On a careful reading of the evidence on record, I find no such justification to disagree with the view taken by the trial Court negating the claim of defendant No. 1 to be the adoptive daughter of Ahemad and mariam as the same is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence after detail analysis assigning good reasons. 9. For all the aforesaid discussion, the trial Court is found to have rightly decreed the suit granting relief as so indicated in the judgment holding the plaintiff to be have the share of Ac. 0.052.5 decimals of land, i.e., Ac. 0.031.5 decimal under Ext. 2 the partition deed Ac. 0.010.5 decimals under Ext. 3, the other registered sale deed. 10. In the result, the first appeal stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to cost is passed. Appeal dismissed.