H.Mahapatra, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for partition of joint family properties scheduled to the plaint, involving a dispute about the parentage of the first five plaintiffs. They claimed that they were sons of one Kanchan Singh through his second wife Churia and the original defendant No. 1 (who now is dead) was their step brothel through the first wife of Kanchan Singh. A genealogy was appended to the plaint showing one Dhana Singh had three sons Jagmohan, Bansi and Chandi. Jagniohans son was Kanchan Singh whose sons were the defendant No. 1 and the first five plaintiffs. Defendants 2 to 5 are sons and grandsons of a Baikunth Narain Singh, defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs 6, 7 and 11 are sons and grandson oi plaintiff No. 1, Ramkhelawan Singh. Plaintiff No. 8 is son of the second plaintiff Bujhawan Singh and plaintiffs 9 and 10 are sons of the third plaintiff Lachhmi Singh. During the suit Ramkhelawan Singh died, so also defendant No. I Baikunth. Plaintiffs case was that Jagmohan, Bansi and Chandi formed a Hindu joint family having ancestral properties. They also acquired properties out of the income from the ancestral properties. While in joint