Judgement

MISRA, J. :- Defendants 5 and 10 are the appellants. Defendant No. 10 is the wife of defendant 5. The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties :-

2. Plaintiff is the natural son of Brojaraj and claims to be the adopted son of Gopinath. He filed the suit for partition claiming eight annas of the total ancestral property on the allegation that he was adopted by Gopinath who was the adopted son of Dasarathi.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 are the natural brothers of the plaintiff and support the plaintiffs case in toto.

Defendant No. 5 contested the suit challenging both the adoptions. He averred in his written statement that in 1945 there was a family settlement whereby the entire property was divided by metes and bounds into five equal shares and that the arrangement was acted upon. In the alternative, he also made a claim that the properties in Schedules A/4 and A/10 of the plaint were his selt-acquisitions and the live-stock mentioned in G Schedule are the separate property of his wife (defendant No. 10).

Defendants 6, 9 and 10 filed written statement supporting the case of defendant 5.

Defendant 8 filed written statement supporting the case of defendant 5 so far