BANSIDHAR PANDA Vs. APARTI CHARAN PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 3 is the appellant. Plaintiff -respondent No. 1 (since dead) had filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of 'B' Schedule property and for confirmation or, in the alternative. recovery of possession and for permanent injunction.

(2.) IT is the admitted case of both the parties that one Mandar Panda had three sons, namely Sridhar, Giridhari and Aparti (plaintiff),. According to the plaintiff, the properties described in 'B' Schedule were the separate properties of Sridhar and Lot No. 2 of the said Schedule had been acquired by Sridhar in the name of his wife, Sara Dei. The wife and son of Sridhar had pre -deceased him and after the death of Sridhar in the year 1971, the plaintiff being the brother succeeded to the property in preference to defendant No. 1, the daughter of Giridhari and defendant No. 3, the son of defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) THE trial Court found that Draupadi was the daughter of Giridhari and Lot No. 2 was the 'Stridhan' property of the wife of Sridhar. The trial Court, however, held that though defendant No. 3 had been adopted by Sridhar, such adoption was invalid as Sridhar could not have adopted the son of his brother's daughter. The trial Court held that D.W.4 being the sister of deceased Sridhar was entitled to succeed to half of the properties left by Sridhar and the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to the balance half. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit in part in respect of all the properties except Lot No. 2, which, according to the trial Court being the 'Stridhan' property of Sara Dei, did not devolve upon the plaintiff.