Judgement

NARASIMHAM, J. :- This second appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 against the concurrent decisions of the two lower Courts declaring the plaintiffs title to the disputed property and directing that he should recover possession of the same from defendants 1 and 2. The following pedigree will be helpful in understanding this litigation.

2. The plaintiffs case was that the family remained joint, that Arta died sometime in 1920, that Krupasindhu died in 1939 issueless, his wife having predeceased him, and that the entire joint family property devolved on the plaintiff by survivorship. Defendant 3 being the widow of a deceased coparcener was entitled only to maintenance and that the Kabala executed by her in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 23-2-40 in respect of the joint family property was invalid and did not convey any title to them. The main defence of defendants 1 and 2 was that Jagannath, the father of the plaintiff, had been given away in adoption to one Madhab Das and that consequently the plaintiff had absolutely no interest in the joint family property which devolved on the descendants of Lokanath only. It was further alleged that Arta survived Krupasindhu and became the so