KAMALAKANTA MOHAPATRA Vs. PRATAP CHANDRA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Balasore-Bhadrak in S. J. Appeal No. 99/1991, modifying the judgment and decree passed by learned Addl. Sub-ordinate Judge, Balasore in O. S. No. 36 of 1988-1/119 of 1984 to certain extent, but dismissing the appeal as well as the cross-objection, the plaintiff-respondents have approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC.

(2.) The appellants are the legal representatives of deceased Sudhamani, who, as the sole plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 36 of 1988-1/119 of 1984 in the Court of the then Addl. Sub-ordinate Judge, Balasore. The said suit was one for partition. According to the plaint case the properties morefuly described in suit schedule were part and parcel Of her ancestral properties and she had a valid share therein. To appreciate the inter se disputes, it would be prudent to furnish the genealogy which is as follows : Gangadhar was the common ancestor. Out of three sons of Gangadhar namely Raghunath, Lokanath and Krushna, Raghunath died some time prior to 1956 while living in Jointness. He had only one married daughter Ratramani, who had also died. Thus, the branch of Raghunath became extinct. Loknath died some time in the year 1976 leaving behind Sudhamani, the plaintiff, as the legal heir. Krushna (Defendant No. 1) died during pendency of the suit. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are his sons and daughter. The properties as would be evident from the Record of Rights, Exts. 4 to 4/a, stood recorded in the name of the common ancestor Gangadhar. The properties covered under Exts. B to H were purchased by separate registered sale deeds by Lokanath. The remaining properties were purchased by Krushna in his name and in the name of his sons (Defendant Nos. 2 and 3). The parties are admittedly governed under Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. It is further averred that defendants fraudulently obtained a gift deed (Ext. A) from Lokanath in respect of some of the plaint schedule properties and claimed exclusive rights. As the plaintiff was deprived of enjoying the said lands, she filed a suit for partition claiming half share in the entire plaint schedule properties.

(3.) Defendants 1 to 3 appeared and jointly filed their written statement repudiating the averments made in the plaint They also stoutly denied the fact that the gift deed Ext. A was obtained by fraud. They also denied the allegation that the properties were purchased by the defendants out of joint family nucleus. It is averred that out of their own income Krushna and others had acquired some lands which should be treated as their self acquired properties. The defendants also disputed the assertions that the plaintiff was the daughter of Lokanath.