B.K. Sharma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel representing the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1. The Appellant was the pro forma Defendant No. 3 in the suit in question.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to filling of the instant second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court are as follows.

3. One Gokul Chand Sinha died in tested leaving behind the Appellant and the Respondents as his legal heirs and successors. The property left by him was to be divided among his legal heirs as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

4. The Plaintiff-Respondent filed title Suit (Partition) No. 8/2005 praying for partition of the property left by his father late Gakul Chand Sinha. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it was categorically stated that the pro forma Defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who are the daughters of late Gakul Chand Sinha were satisfied with the properties given to them and as such they became disclaimers in respect of their share of property left by their father, late Gakul Chand Sinha forming subject matter of the suit. With such categorical statem