ARABINDA SINGHA MAHAPATRA Vs. NALINAKSHA SINGHA MAHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree passed by Smt. N. Majumder, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Purulia dated 20.12.2001 in Title Suit No. 121 of 1998, is under challenge in the present appeal, at the instance of plaintiff-appellant since the said suit was dismissed on contest.

(2.) In the pleading before the learned Trial Judge, appellant being plaintiff there, projected his case in the style as himself being the elder brother of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being defendant Nos. 1 & 2 before the trial Court in the capacity of the 2nd brother and the youngest brother of the plaintiff. Being well placed in service at Coal India (E.C.L.) as Area Manager/Agent, having decent income, plaintiff imparted all the education costs of the said two brothers, since he had soft corner towards them and also he used to meet the family expenses of their ancestral house at Jharbagda. Ultimately, defendant No. 1 started his practice at Manbazar on completion of medical education and the defendant No. 2 joined at Sammilani College, Bankura as a lecturer. As the original residence of the parties at village Jharbagda was 3 K.M.s away from Manbazar and as there was dearth of accommodation in the said Bastu having their different co-sharers, to avoid future difficulties and complications, all the three brothers (appellant and respondent Nos. 1 & 2) decided to purchase a Bastu land at Manbazar to construct their houses there and accordingly, out of their own income jointly purchased the 'Schedule -1' property measuring one acre three decimals at Manbazar from one Mir Sahadat Ali at a consideration amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) only though a major portion of the said amount was borne by the appellant as respondents had no sufficient income at the relevant point of time. They also purchase 'Schedule - 2' property jointly measuring one acre seven decimals at Singraidih being an agricultural land of Bahai type from one Surya Narayan Singha Mahapatra and in that case also appellant shared major portion of the consideration amount.

(3.) After purchase of the 'Schedule -1' property all the parties, being three brothers, decided to construct their residential house thereon and accordingly, construction work was taken up at their instance from their joint fund. Plaintiff-appellant claimed to have purchased coal from Coal India Limited for brick kiln and also purchased cement and other building materials from Asansol at a cheaper rate and also contributed major portion of money towards the construction. The house was completed within three/four years from the date of purchase of the land, at a total sum or expenditure around Rs. 2 (two) lakh. The house property so constructed was a single storied one having six rooms besides dining space, kitchen, latrine etc. so as to provide two rooms each to the three brothers. The appellant-plaintiff also claimed to have purchased two acres of paddy land at Mouza Gobindapur jointly besides 'Schedule - 1' and 'Schedule - 2' properties which has been described subsequently as Schedule - 2(a)' in the plaint. The appellant claimed that he along with his said two brothers respondent Nos. 1 & 2, have one-third share each in the Schedule properties and have not been partitioned on amicable approach upon the denial of the respondent No. 1 specifically and so, the appellant being the plaintiff brought the suit for partition before the trial Court.