A.K. Rath, J. - (1.) This is a defendants' appeal against an affirming judgment. The suit was for partition.
(2.) The following genealogy would show the relationship of the parties. The case of the plaintiffs is that the parties are Scheduled Tribes. They are governed under the Mitakhara School of Hindu Law. Piru Majhi was the common ancestor of the parties. He had two wives. Majhia, Gamai, Baiju, Sankha and Natai are sons of Piru through first wife. Leta is the son of Piru through second wife. All sons of Piru are dead. The land of Majhia was recorded in his name under Khata No. 91, mouza-Baliasahi. Baiju died unmarried. Plaintiff no.1 is the son of Natai. Plaintiff no.2 is the son of Sankha. Other sons of Sankha namely Piru and Baiju are dead. The defendants are sons of Lengda Piru, who is the son of Gamai. The suit schedule properties are the joint family property. The same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds.
(3.) Defendant nos.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement denying assertions made in the plaint. According to them Leta Majhi had no issue. He was living jointly with his brothers Majhia Majhi and Gamai Majhi even though their lands were separately recorded in their respective names. Leta Majhi adopted Piru @ Lengda Piru, the father of defendant nos.1 and 2 about 53 years back as his son. Lengda Piru was possessing all the lands till his death. Therefore, his sons (defendants) are in possession of the suit land openly, peacefully and without interruption and to the knowledge of all the plaintiffs. During the current settlement operation, the plaintiffs staked a claim over the suit lands, to which defendants did not agree, for which they filed the suit.;