PUTUL PATRA Vs. SUKUMAR PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred to assail the judgment and decree passed in preliminary form on 23/12/2020 in a suit for partition vide. T.S. no. 116 of 2014 declaring the plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no.2 to be entitled to the share to the extent of 10-5/8 dec. and 22-3/8 dec. respectively, defendant nos. 4(Ka), 4 (Kha) and 5 to be entitled to the share to the extent of 1/3rd jointly and whereas the defendant no. 13 to 19 to be entitled to 1/3rd share of 'Ka' schedule property and also holding that defendant no. 21 is not the daughter of the Prasanna Patra and is not entitled to any share in 'Ka' schedule property.

(2.) One Sukumar Patra S/o Achintya Patra and one Ajoy Patra S/o Nabin Patra filed one suit for partition. Facts depicted in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(3.) Records reveal that only the defendant no. 21 namely, Putul Patra (hereinafter referred to as Putul) contested the suit by filing written statement. Specific defence taken by the defendant no. 21 was that she happens to be daughter of Prasanna Patra and Praksha Patra and not of Baino and Durgamonee Jana and she specifically claimed that she did not sell her share which she inherited on demise of her father, Prasanna to anyone and hence, she is entitled to get her share.