1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 2007 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge-1, Basmatnagar, Hingoli. Present respondent No.1 had filed Regular Civil suit No.135 of 1995 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Basmatnagar for relief of partition and declaration in respect of immovable property and the suit is decided in favour of the respondent No.1. This decision is confirmed against the present appellant / defendant by the First Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard.

2) The suit was filed in respect of land Survey Nos.425 and 428 situated at Girgaon. The total area of these two lands is around 2.12 hectares. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sisters of the plaintiff.

3) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties were owned by father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 namely Shankarrao and it was his ancestral property. It is contended that Shankarrao died on 10-2-1995 and after his death plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 became owner of these properties and each of them has equal share in this property. It is contended that after death of Shankarrao there was possession of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 over the suit property.

4) Shankarrao had no male issue. It is contended that Shankarrao had no intention to take boy in adoption as he loved his daughters very much and he wanted to see that his daughters get the properties after him. It is contended that defendant No.1 was living with deceased Shankarrao in his village and she was taking care of Shankarrao till his death. It is contended that Shankarrao died at the age of 90 years and from many years prior to the death, Shankarrao was sick.

5) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 3 is a close relative of deceased Shankarrao and in order to grab the property of Shankarrao defendant No.3 developed cordial relations with Shankarrao. It is contended that defendant No.3 then started posing himself as adopted son of Shankarrao. It is contended that Shankarrao never adopted defendant No.3. It is contended that at the relevant time, when defendant No.3 contends that he was taken in adoption, defendant No.3 had crossed age of 15 years, he was married and he had a son. It is contended that there is no custom in their community or family of the plaintiff to take such person in adoption.

6) It is the case of the plaintiff that falsely Regular Civil Suit No.65/1984 was filed by defendant No.3 against Shankarrao and false record of compromise was created by defendant No.3 to grab the properties of Shankarrao. It is contended that there was no need for Shankarrao to compromise such matter. It is contended that defendant No.3 then got entered his name in the revenue record of the agricultural lands. It is contended that defendant No.3 appears to have entered name of defendant No.4, son of defendant No.3 in the revenue record to show that he is owner of some portion of the suit property.

7) It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Shankarrao, when she made enquiry, she realised that the names of defendant Nos.3 and 4 were entered in the revenue record of the suit property. The plaintiff is resident of other place. It is contended that due to such record, she felt that her sister, defendant No.1 had joined hands with defendant No.3. It is her case that when she made enquiry with defendant No.3, defendant No.3 said that he was adopted by Shankarrao and so plaintiff had no right in the suit property. In the suit, plaintiff had prayed for relief of partition and separate possession of her one -third share. She had also prayed for relief of declaration to the effect that the so called adoption of defendant No.3 is void. Declaration was sought to the effect that the decree of Suit No.65/1984 is not binding on the plaintiff.

8) Defendant No.1 filed consent written statement. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed written statement and they resisted the cla