ARJUNO NAIKO Vs. MODONOMOHONO NAIKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is brought by some of the defendants to a suit in which one Modonomohono Naiko was the plaintiff. The suit, in form a suit for partition, was in reality brought for the purpose of establishing that the plaintiff, as the adopted son of one Horikrushno deceased, was entitled to succeed to the Sirdarship of Gondhadharo which had been held and enjoyed by Horikrushno in his lifetime. After Horikrushno's death (which occurred on April 5, 1924), questions arose as to the succession, and as to whether the plaintiff was in fact the adopted son of the late Sirdar. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported adversely to the plaintiff's claim; but the Board of Revenue having considered the evidence then adduced, most properly thought that the question was too complicated for a Revenue Court to decide, and directed that the petitioner (i.e., the plaintiff) should establish his claim in a competent civil Court. The present suit was accordingly instituted on August 3, 1927, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampur.

(2.) THE following pedigree shows the natural relationship of the parties: Brundabono | ------------------------------------------------| | Boidyonatho Jagamangala | |-----------------------------------|| | | Tumbanath Horikrushno = Asili Krupasindhu Brojobondhu | (Deft. No.4) (Deft. No.1) (Deft. No.3) || | || ----------|| | | || THE plff. Bolobhodro | THE Present (1) Arjhuno ---------- appellants, as (2) Bhimo | | legal represent- (3) Antrajami Notoboro Nokulo atives of Deft. (4) Roghunatho (Deft. No.5)(Deft. No.6) No.1 now (5) Bhoroto deceased (6) Dondopani (Deft. No.2) THE respondents to the present appeal are the plaintiff, and defendants Nos. 3, 5 and6. A claim had been set up, by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4, that Dondopani (defendant No.2) was the adopted son of the late Sirdar, but both Courts in India have rejected this claim, and it may be ignored.

(3.) THAT in substance constitutes the judgment on the first issue. As regards the 6th issue, he decided that defendants Nos. 5 and 6 belonged to a divided branch, but that they, together with defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (the widow being entitled by will to Horikrushno's share), were entitled to the shares agreed upon between the parties as evidenced by a certain document, exhibit XXXI. A decree, dated March 30, 1929, was made accordingly.