LAWS(ORI)-2000-9-16

JAYAKRISHNA DAS Vs. MOHANI CHARAN DAS

Decided On September 12, 2000
JAYAKRISHNA DAS Appellant
V/S
MOHANI CHARAN DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are appellants before this Court against an affirming judgment.

(2.) The respondent filed the suit for a decree for partition and for allotment of half share in the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff is that prior to his birth late Uchhab Das had adopted defendant No.1 as his son. The suit properties originally belonged to one Dibakar Lenka and in the year 1946 the same was purchased by late Uchhab Das in the name of the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 jointly. As the mother of the plaintiff died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, both of them sold the suit properties to Uchhab Das under a registered sale deed dated 23.1.1950. After death of Uchhab Das the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were in joint possession of the same and in view of the inconvenience experienced by the parties in possessing the properties jointly, a prayer was made to defendant No. 1 for an amicable partition which was turned down. Therefore, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendants filed a joint written statement denying all the allegations of the plaintiff. The first objection taken is that the plaintiff is not the son of Uchhak Bas, but the son of one Bimbadhar Das alias Rout. As Bimbadhar died leaving behind his widow Ketaki and the plaintiff, Uchhaba brought both Ketaki and the plaintiff to his house. Uchhaba died in the year 1952 leaving behind defendant No. 1 as his only son and defendant No. 1 became the exclusive owner in possession of the suit properties. It is further stated in the written statement that defendant No. 1 is possessing the suit land as exclusive owner thereof with the house standing thereon and is paying rent for the lands and holding tax in respect of the house. A further plea was raised by the defendants to the effect that l8l/2 decimals of land from out of plot No.213 pertaining to Khata No.19 in mouza sagabaria acquired jointly by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 from the ex landlord Nrusinghanath Thakur has not been brought into the hotch potch and therefore, partial partition is not maintainable.