SAM CHARAN SAMAL AND ORS. Vs. BASUDEV SAMAL AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sam Charan Samal
Click here to view full judgement.
Mohanty, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal is by Defendants 1 to 4. One Rusi Samal had three sons, Anadi, Krishna, and Keshab Plaintiff -1 is the son of Krishna. Anadi is Plaintiff -2. Plaintiffs is the son of Anadi. Keshab has left two sons, Shama (d -1) and Brahmananda (d -2). Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of Defendant -1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the Plaintiffs claiming partition of 10 annas and 8 pies interest in the family property. According to the Plaintiffs, the family was divided about three years prior to the institution of the suit in 1945. By that division, Defendants 1 to 4 remain joint, but live separate from the Plaintiffs. The defence case is that the family separated about 10 or 12 years back and that after separation, they have acquired some properties in which the Plaintiffs have got no interest.
(2.) THE concurrent findings of both the courts below are:
(1) That the family separated about three years prior to the institution of the suit, but not 10 or 12 years back; and
(2) that the 7.49 acres of land purchased by Defendants 1 to 4 are not the Defendants self -acquired property, but are the joint family property in which the Plaintiffs have got 10 annas and eight pies interest. With these findings, the trial court has decreed the Plaintiffs' suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. Against this order of the lower appellate court, Defendants 1 to 4 have come up in second appeal.
Mr. Subba Rao appearing for the Appellants has urged firstly, that the family separated about 10 or 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, and that the finding of the courts below on this point is wrong; and secondly, that even assuming that the family separated about three years prior to the institution of the suit, the seven and odd acres of land, which the Appellants claim not to be the joint family property, should be held to be the separate property of Defendants 1 to 4.
(3.) AS regards the first point, His Lordship discusses the evidence and holds thus:
We do nab find anything wrong in their finding on that point; and we are not inclined interfere in it.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.