The presumption of jointness among coparceners is strong and can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of separation. Adverse possession requires clear proof of ouster from possession of the rightful owner.

C. R. Thakur, J.—This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for partition of Hindu coparcenary property.

2. The plaintiffs pleaded that they formed a joint Hindu family with the defendants, Shiam Sunder and others and the property in suit was coparcenary property, that they possessed a 2/3rd share in the same and a l/3rd share belonged to the defendants.

3. In order to understand the real relationship between the parties it would be proper to give the genealogical tree of the parties : Ram Bhaj Shib Dutt Devki Nandan (died issueless) Gauri Shankar Chaman Prakash (adopted son) (Plaintiff No. 3) Ram Chander Ganga Ram Tara Chand (Plaintiff 1) Manmohan Lal alias Pawan Prakash (Plaintiff 2) Shayam Sunder (Deft.1) Jagdish Narain (Deft.2) Vishwa Nath (Deft.3) Uma Devi (Deft.4) Damyanti (Deft.5) Daya Wati (Deft.6) Karma Devi (Deft.7) The plaintiffs alleged that Chaman Prakash, the natural son of Ganga Ram, had been adopted by Gauri Shankar, that he was entitled to a l/3rd share in the property and the other plaintiffs to a l/3rd share.

4. The defendants denied they were the members of the joint Hindu family or that the suit property was coparcenary property. They pleaded that the parties had separated 30 or 40 years ago. It was, however, admitted that the property was ancestral but further on it was pleaded that during the lifetime of their common ancestor, Shib Dutt, the property had been partitioned and thereafter they were living separately. The defendants also took up the plea that they were in adverse possession of the suit property. It was said that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also asserted that the brothers of Ram Chander, during the lifetime of their father, had refused to pay the debts of their father and that Ram Chander had discharged the said debts and, therefore, Shib Dutt, their father, disinherited the other- sons. It was denied that Chaman Prakash had been adopted by Gauri Shankar. It was also pleaded that the suit had not been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, and that the plaintiffs were estopped from filing the suit on account of their acts and deeds.

5. The court below found that Chaman Prakash was the validly adopted son of Gauri Shankar and was entitled to a 1/3rd share on his death. How ever, this point is not relevant for the purposes of this appeal as the same is not pressed by learned counsel for the appellant. Tssue No. 2 which arose on the plea that a decree in an earlier suit declaring Chaman Prakash as the adopted son of Gauri Shanker was also not pressed. The trial court found the other issues against the defendants, with the result that a decree was passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that they were entitled to a 2/3rd share of the property and that they were entitled to diode the property by metes and bounds. Further, it was ordered that one or more commissioner or commissioners be appointed to effect partition of the property on the spot and on receipt of the report the plaintiffs would be entitled to a final decree.

6. The plea of the appellants that they do not constitute a joint family with the respondents and that the property is not coparcenary property may be dealt with first. It cannot be disputed that the properties in Khasra Nos. 1577 and 1973 constituted coparcenary property in the hands of Shib Dutt while the property situated in Khasra No. 1924/2 must be regarded as his self-acquired property. The three properties, on the death of Shib Dutt, would constitute the coparcenary property of the Hindu coparcenary consisting of his sons, Gauri Shanker, Ram Chander and Ganga Ram, and their—sons. But the appellants say that because Gauri Shankar and Ganga Raqa did not clear off the debts of Shib Dutt and Ram Chander did so, Shib Dutt in his lifetime gave away all the properties to Ram Chander. Reliance has been placed on a document (Exhibit DA), dated 10th Bhadon, 1882 BK alleged to Have been executed by Shib Dutt in favour