The admission of a person who has a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, made during the continuance of the interest, is admissible as evidence against that person and against any other person who has a joint interest with that person.

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 as the family arrangement is concerned and supported the Plffs case so far as the adoptions are concerned.

The other defendants were ex parte.

4. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge found both the adoptions true and rejected the contention of defendant No. 5 regarding his self-acquisition. On the question of family arrangement in 1945, he recorded a confused finding to the effect that there was a family arrangement as pleaded by defendant No. 5, but there was no partition by metes and bounds. Accordingly he passed a preliminary decree for partition of the entire disputed properties. Plaintiffs claim for accounting was refused. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to half of the compensation payable for B schedule property.

5. Mr. H. G. Panda, learned counsel for the appellants, raised two contentions - firstly, that all the joint family properties had not been brought into hotchpot and the alienees had not been made parties to the suit and the suit for partition must fail; secondly, that Gopinaths adoption to Dasarathi has not been established.

6. The first contention has no substance. No issue on this point was raised by defendant 5 and the point was not agitated before the trial Court. We are therefore, not prepared to allow such a contention to be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. Further whether a suit for partition should comprise ail the joint family properties, or whether it can be brought in respect of a portion of such properties would depend upon many circumstances. There is no absolute rule of law prohibiting a suit for partition of some of the properties only. Assuming that some properties have been left out, parties are not precluded from effecting partition of those properties at a subsequent stage. The appellants are also not precluded from raising valid objections, if any, in a subsequent litigation. This contention accordingly fails.

7. The second contention deserves closer scrutiny. To establish the adoption of Gopinath to Dasarathi, plaintiff relies on the following documents Exts. 5, 5/a, 6, 6/a, 3, 3/a and the written statement of defendant no. 8 in the suit. Exts. 5 and 5/a are two unregistered mortgage deeds dated November 30, 1906 executed by Damodar and Gopinath in favour of the mortgagees. Therein Gopinath is described as the son of late Dasarathi Rajguru. Both Damodar Rajaguru Mohapatra and Gopinath Rajguru Mohapatra are executants of the documents. Therein Damodar, the natural father of Gopinath and the grandfather of defdt. 5, admitted that Gopinath was the son of Dasarathi. The admission of Damodar is admissible and is relevant u/s. 32 (3) of the Evidence Act as it is a statement against his proprietary interest inasmuch as he would lose his share in the property of Dasarathi if Gopinath was his adopt