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 possession of the same, there was an amicable oral partition between the three branches in 1336 Fs. in which raiyati lands described in schedules 1-Ka and 1-Kha of the plaint and the zamindary interests, mortgage debts and other debts as mentioned in the plaint schedule were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and they have been, since then, in joint possession of those properties. The properties allotted to the branches of Bansi Singh and Chandi Singh came in their respective separate possession. The lands mentioned in schedule i-Kha were purchased by and belonged to Kanchan Singh and the plaintiffs and the defendants had been also in joint possession of the same. On account of difference amongst the two wives of Kanchan Singh the plaintiffs had to mess with their mother, separate from their step mother and her son and grandson in 1933, but the properties continued to remain joint in the management ot defendant No. r who was the eldest member and Karta of the family. The properties described in Schedule 2 of the plaint were in separate possession of the plaintiffs for their pocket expense. On account of difference and suspicion, the plaintiffs claimed partition from the defendants which was refused and the suit therefore, had to be instituted claiming five-sixth share for the plaintiffs, the remaining one-sixth belonging to defendant No. x and his branch.

2. In the trial Court, on account of death, plaintiff No. 1s name was expunged, his heirs having already been on record as plaintiffs. The original defendant No. 1, after his death, was substituted by his widow Shyama Devi. His other heirs were already on record. The minor sons oi defendants 2 and 3, namely, original defendants 4, 5 6 and 7 (grandsons of defendant No. 1 Baikunth) were also expunged for failure of necessary steps for appointment of a guardian-ad-litem for them.

3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 2. The written statement was filed by him and his father defendant No. 1. Plaintiffs title and possession over the suit properties were denied. The basis of the contest mainly was that Kanchan Singh, father of defendant No. 1, had not two wives. He had only one wife and defendant No. 1 was the only son through her. Kanchan Singh being of loose moral character had left the house and began to live with one low caste woman (Tirani woman). Plaintiffs 1 to 5 were born of that woman who was also accessible to others. The original ancestor Dhana Singhs three sons Jagmohan, Bansi and Chandi were of poor means and maintained themselves with difficulty. Jagmohan went to America in young age and became a medical practitioner there and began to support the family which had only 8 bighas of land, with his earnings. He amassed great fortune and acquired large properties. By