A plaint is not a public document and, as such, not provable by a certified copy.

H.Mahapatra, J.

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Plaintiff No. 1, who was the widow of Rai Bahadur Ramnarain Lal Seth, died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court and no one was substituted in her place. Plaintiff No. 2, who was minor, has now become major and plaintiff No. 3 is still minor under the guardianship of his brother plaintiff No. 2. The suit was for partition of the joint family properties in which plaintiff No. 1 claimed one-fourth and the other plaintiff one-sixteenth each.

2. One Ganesh Ram Seth died leaving two sons Rai Bahadur Ramnarain Lal Seth and Baiju Lal Seth. The latter died on the 20th of October, 1913, leaving his widow Mt. Lakshmi Bai who was defendant No. 6 (respondent No. 5) in this appeal. Ramnarain Lal also died in 1932 leaving his widow Mt. Jaraw Bai (plaintiff No. 1) and three sons Sheo Prasad Lal, Sheo Karan Lal and Sheo Lal. These three sons of Ramnarain Lal were impleaded in the suit as defendants 3, 1 and 4, respectively. Defendant No. 2 is the son of Sheo Karan. Defendant No. 5 was Babu Lal, son of Sheo Lal who is now dead. Defendant No. 1 is also dead; but his son defendant No. 2 is already on re cord. Plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 were the sons of Sheo Prasad, defendant No. 3 of them, plaintiff No. 4 Shree Ram !s dead and expunged from the record under order No. 231, dated the 8th February, 1945 by the trial Court. From this short genealogy it would appear that the suit was by Ram Narain Lals widow and three of his grandsons. It was claimed that all the parties belonged to a Hindu joint Mitakshara family owning the suit properties in which the plaintiff No. 1 would have 4 annas and each of the branches of her three sons Sheo Prasad, Sheo Karan and Sheo Lal would have 4 annas share. Defendant No. 6 will have no share as her husband died in 1918 in joint status with other coparceners.

3. In the plaint, by way of an amendment, it was stated that there was no partition of movable and immovable properties in the family in August 1936 as alleged by defendant No. 1. If there was any such partition it was not for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs and they were not bound by that. Plaintiff No. 1 was not a party to that partition and she was also not bound by that. The alleged partition was also not acted upon.

4. Defendant No. 1, Sheo Karan Lal set up his adoption to Baiju Lal. He also supported the previous partition by which he was given 8 annas share in the joint family properties. His son, who was minor defendant No. 2, adopted his case in the written statement through his pleader guardian. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 supported the plaintiffs.

5. In the written statement filed in Court on behalf of defendant No. 6 on the 26th May, 1942, the previous partition in the family on the 8th of August, 1936, and the adoption of defendant No. 1 by Baiju Lal were admitted. Later, on the 22nd February, 1947, another written statement was filed by defendant No. 6 in which she alleged that the plaintiffs suit was in collusion with defendants 1 to 5 with a view to depriving defendant No. 6 of her inheritance of 8 annas share belonging to her husband Baiju Lal who died in a state of separation from his brother. She disputed the adoption of Sheo Karan Lal to Baiju Lal as alleged in the written statement of defendant No. 1. There was an unsuccessful effort on the part of the plaintiffs in the trial Court to discard the later written statement of defendant No. 6. I have not referred to other details in the pleadings of the parties as the point involved in this appeal does not make it necessary. In brief, the main controversies between the parties were in regard to a previous partition, adoption of defendant No. 1 and separation of defendant No. 6s husband before his death.

6. The trial Court decreed the suit in part declaring the share of the parties as follows; Plaintiff No. 1 2 annas, plaintiffs 2 and 3, 1 anna 4 pies, defendant No. 3, 8 pies, defendants 1 and 2, 2 annas, defendants 4 and 5, 2 annas and