BANCHHANIDHI GIRI Vs. JEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question, - whether, in the circumstances of the case, there was partition by severance of status, though not by metes and bounds, - is the only point involved in this second appeal filed by the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2, 5 to 8 against a reversing decision of the learned subordinate Judge, Puri, whereby he set aside a decision of the learned Munsif, Navagarh, and decreed the plaintiff's suit for partition for his one-third share in the property.

(2.) A geneological table, showing the relationship of the parties, - other than the outsider purchasers from the members of the joint family, who are also defendants in the suit, - is set out as follows: The facts are few and simple. The plaintiff Banchhanidhi filed a suit for partition of the family properties belonging to the three branches as shown above. The plaintiff claims half share in the suit properties, on the allegation that Ladu, the third brother died in 1944 without any male issue; accordingly, Ladu's share survived to the other two branches of Bhagawan and Hadu; that of the three brothers (Bhagawan, Hadu and Ladu) Ladu died in jointness; accordingly, the plaintiff Banchhanidhi claimed half of the entire share of Ladu. The plaintiff's case, shortly stated, is this: the defendants 1 and 2 (sons of Hadu) had made alienations to third parties; defendants 3 and 4 (daughters of Ladu) had also made alienations to certain purchasers defendants 10 to 13; that the alienations, made by Ladu's daughters defendants 3 and 4, are not binding on the joint family, because the daughters had no interest in their father Ladu's property; with regard to the alienations made by defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff's case is that they wrongfully claimed some of the properties as self-acquired properties. The alleged cause of action for the suit was that Ladu's daughters, by force, had taken possession of certain properties, and entries were caused to be made in the records in their names in respect of the properties; the plaintiff thereupon, filed the suit, in which his first prayer was for partition of the properties, the plaintiff for himself claiming one-third share interest in the joint family properties: in the alternative, he prayed that, in case Ladu's daughters defendants 3 and 4 are found by the court, according to justice and equity, to have no interest in the suit properties, then he prayed for partition claiming half share in the properties.