1. In this second appeal, on behalf of the 34th defendant appellant, Mr. Mohammed Naha, learned counsel challenges the concurrent decisions rendered by the subordinate courts As against the appellant, ignoring his claim to have the transaction under Ext. B 106 recognised, and rejecting the claim made by him for dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for partition.

2. It is necessary to state a few facts leading up to this litigation. One Malu was possessed of the suit properties, which are 6 in number. She died in 1938. Her husband is the 3rd defendant, and she left three sons and three daughters. The three sons are defendants 4 to 6, and the three daughters are Sarojini, Subhadra and the 1st defendant. We are particularly referring to the names of the two daughters because it is necessary to advert to and deal with the contention that has been raised by Mr. Naha, learned counsel for the appellant that the plaint has not been properly verified and signed according to law. The present suit was instituted on 16th July 1954 by Sarojini, one of the daughters of Malu. The suit itself was for partition and separate possession of her 1/3 share in the suit properties. Her claim was t