BRAJABANDHU SAHU Vs. KRUPASINDHU SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution is for quashing Annexure -3 whereby the Commissioner of Consolidation has directed to record the disputed lands measuring Ac. 1. 88 1/2 decimals in the name of the present opp. party No. 1 and petitioners -in the Land Register prepared Under Section 6 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short 'the Consolidation Act').

(2.) ONE Shyamasundar Sahu died in 1976 leaving behind three sons namely, Brajibandhu (petitioner -1), Krupasindhu (O. P. 1) and Dinabandhu (petitioner -2), Radhanuni and Sundarmani were respectively the wives of Brajabandhu and Krupasindhu and they are dead, whereas Kanakamani (petitioner -3) is the wife of Dinabandhu. Admittedly, while the three - brother's were joint they purchased lands separately either in their mames or in the names of their wives. The disputed lands measuring Ac. 1.88 1/2 decimals were acquired either in the name of Brajabandhu or in the name of Dinabandhu or in the names of their wives by five registered sale deeds of the years 1953, 1969, 1976, 1977, and 1982. After the purchases, the disputed lands were recorded in the names of the purchasers separately in the settlement operation. Similarly, Krupasindhu and his wife Sundarmani got the lands purchased in their names separately recorded in the settlement as well as. consolidation operations.

(3.) MR . G. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the findings of the Commissioner of Consolidation that the disputed lands became joint family properties having been thrown to the common hotchh pot by purchasers and as such, opp party No. 1 his a share therein is liable to be set side, being untenable in law. The finding of the Commissioner and the reasons for such a finding may be usefully quoted as under : '...From the evidence it is clear that the father of the parties died subsequent to acquisition. It further reveals that the further was the custodian of the suit property till his death. It is not the case of O.Ps. that they were in separate cultivation of the suit land on their own account. Rather it has been stated by the O.P. Nos 1 and 2 that they were maintaining the family. It is also evident that the income from the suit lands was enjoyed by the entire family member. The O. Ps. have not categorically shown about the maintenance of their separate income. From these circumstances I am of the view that although the suit lands were the separate property of the O. Ps. the same were blended with the joint family property and have acquired the character of joint family property. 7. Since it is held that the suit lands are the joint family property, the petitioner is entitled to a share therein as a joint family member.'