RAVINDRANATH Vs. RAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 30/4/2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2013 whereby a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Raity/Rayati to be the daughter of Jhitku Ram. Being aggrieved by such order, the other legal heirs preferred this appeal. To appreciate the factual matrix and the issue involved in this case, we would like to reproduce here the genealogical tree of the parties as submitted before us : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_44_LAWS(CHH)5_2023_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) Plaintiff Smt. Raity/Rayati wife of Sampat Ram filed a suit for declaration that she was born out of marriage of Raimani @ Raimati and Jhitkuram and is legitimate child. Raimati was married to Budhram and it was stated that out of marriage a son namely Sampat, son was born. After death of Budhram, the plaintiff pleaded that as per the caste-custom, Jhitkuram who was also a family member, by performance of Chudi custom accepted Raimati (widow of Budhram) as his wife and out that relation, Raity/Rayati the plaintiff was born. Jhitku Ram was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the original suit and Raimani @ Raymati was arrayed as defendant no.2.

(3.) In the written statement of Jhitku Ram, he denied to have married with Raymati as per the custom and also denied the paternity of Raity, the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined herself and one Sampat Ram whereas during the life time of Jhitku Ram, he could not adduce any evidence and eventually the right to lead evidence was closed by the trial Court on 5/12/2015. Thereafter, Jhitku Ram died on 22/7/2016 which is reflected by the order dtd. 11/5/2017. The application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was filed wherein the plaintiff was arrayed as defendant. The order sheet of the Court below would show that subsequently no application was filed to reopen the evidence and thereafter the case was decided on merits.