JAIBUN NISHA BIBI (DEAD) AND AFTER HER TALEMUN NISHA Vs. SK.AMZAD ALI (DEAD) AND AFTER HIM HASRATUN BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub -ordinate Judge, Jajpur in a suit for partition bearing Title Suit No.117 of 1981.

(2.) SK . Abdulla Ahad was owner of the suit property and he died leaving behind 3 sons, namely Sk. Amzad Ali (D -1), Sk. Md. Hosain (D.2) and Sk. Masaleuddin and a daughter Jaibun Nisha Bibi (Plaintiff -1). Defendant No.3 is the widow of Sk. Masaleuddin and Plaintiff No.2 is the son of plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.1 claimed that she has a share in the property of her late father Sk. Abdulla Ahad and is also in possession of a portion of such property with her son, but defendants are not acceding to their demands for partition. Accordingly, she prayed for petition of the property of her father noted in the suit schedules claiming a share therein. The plaintiffs also took a specific stand that defendant No.4 is not the natural son of Masaleuddin and defendant No.3 and that he was only brought up by that couple out of affection. Defendants 1 and 2 supported the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendants 3 and 4, however, contested the suit. In their written statement while denying the claim of the plaintiffs they pleaded inter alia that plaintiff No.1 is not the daughter of Sk. Abdulla Ahad, but was the daughter of one Sairuddin, who was the brother of Abdulla Ahad and therefore, she has no claim over the properties of Abdulla Ahad. They also took a stand that the properties of Sairuddin was also purchased by the sons of Abulla Ahad and therefore, she has got no right or claim over plot Nos. 1059, 1060, and 1090. About the parentage of defendant No.4 it was specifically claimed that defendant 4 is the natural son of Masaleuddin and Defendant No.3. From the pleadings, learned trial Court framed the following issues and called upon the parties to adduce evidence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants attacks the finding of the trial Court on the issue of parent -hood of Defendant No.4 basically on the ground that learned trial Judge did not properly asses the weight of the evidence given by P.Ws.1 and 3 who are members of the family and had special knowledge about the relationship. He placed relevant portions of the statement of these witnesses to substantiate his argument.