JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Balasore in Title Appeal No. 89/30 of 2001/1999 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Balasore in Title Suit No. 228 of 1990. The learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) had dismissed the suit for partition of properties described in schedule 'B' and 'C' of the plaint with allotment of 1/5th share therein to the plaintiffs and declaring defendant no. 1 to be the adopted son of Jayakrushna Behera and his wife Kshetri. Learned Additional District Judge in setting aside the judgment and decree impugned in the appeal has decreed the suit in its entirety allowing all the prayers made therein.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the court below.

3. The plaintiffs have placed the following genealogy showing the inter se relationship between the parties.

Rama Chandra Behera
Jayakrushna			Jagannath					Bhagaban	Sachidananda		Gajendra
Bhabani	Bilasini	Sarat (Adopted Son)	Hari Mohan	Madan	Allahadin	Suhasini	Futi		Santosh	Sarat - Said to have been (adopted to Jayakrushna)

It is said that the properties are the ancestral properties of the parties, i.e., the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 to 11 and they constitute the undivided Hindu joint family and are governed by Maitkshara School of Hindu Law. It is averred that the properties are not partitioned amongst the parties in metes and bounds and that defendant nos. 12 to 20 had purchased a portion of the said properties from the co-sharers and they have purchased a portion of the undivided homestead and house described in schedule 'C'. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that this Sarat has been adopted by Jayakrushna one of the five sons of the common ancestor Rama Chandra.

4. The defendants contested the suit having denied the case of the adoption of defendant no. 1 by Jayakrushna and his wife in the year 1952 as projected by the plaintiffs. However, the dispute was raised with regard to the claim that the properties were partitioned amongst the co-sharers. It is also disputed that schedule 'C' property is not undivided homestead and house of the joint family consisting of the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 11. Their specific case is that the suit properties have since been partitioned amongst the five sons of Rama Chandra during their life time on 01.07.1964 under one 'panchayat Bantan Patra', which of course was not accepted by the settlement authorities and accordingly the record of right in the Major Settlement remained joint. With all these they sought to non-suit the plaintiffs.

5. The trial court framed nine issues. First of all it took up the issue relating to the adoption and the approach appears to be right. On analysis of evidence in the touch stone of settled principle of law holding the field, the answer has been given against the plaintiffs categorically holding defendant no.1 as not the adopted son of Jayakrushna and his wife Kshetri. The lower appellate Court has held in the affirmative giving much emphasis upon Ext.7, the registered deed of acknowledgement of adoption said to have been executed by Kshetri the widow of Jayakrushna on 27.04.1980 concerning the said adoption.

6. The trial court then taking up the other two issues relating to the partiability of the suit land and the entitlement of the share as claimed by the plaintiffs over the same rendered conclusive finding that there had already been previous partition and the question of reopening the same does not arise. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

The lower appellate court on these issues beginning with presumption that every Hindu family is presumed to be joint a