ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) IN a suit for partition the question whether the original appellant Krushna (since deceased and substitute by his legal heirs) was adopted son of one Bhramar Kohali arose for consideration. Plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the claim made in that regard by Krushna (defendant No. 2 ). Non-acceptance of the plea of adoption by the trial Court has brought the claimant before this Court.

( 2 ) THE only question that needs answer in this appeal is whether the claim of adoption as raised was acceptable. For answering this question a brief reference to the respective averments is necessary. The undisputed genealogy is as follows : the plaintiffs prayed for partition of the suit properties claiming 2/9ths share in Schedule 'a', 1/3rd share in Schedule 'b'and 2/3rd share in Shedule 'c' properties. Krushna (defendant No. 2) claimed that he was adopted by Bhramar since his childhood in the year 1929, and was therefore entitled to half share in Schedule 'a' and Schedule 'b' properties along with the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, defendants 3 to 5 are entitled to the remaining half share in Schedules 'a' and 'b' properties; plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 a