PARIKHITA MOHAPATRA Vs. SITA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition of the moveable and immovable properties described in Schedules annexed to the plaint in two equal shares and allot him one share therein. The genealogy of the family given in the plaint, the correctness of which is not seriously disputed, is given below for the sake of convenience of reference :

(2.) PLAINTIFF's case, in brief, is as follows : The common ancestor Nityananda left four sons Dayanidhi, Madhab, Fakir and Haribandhu who constituted a joint family possessing immovable properties as well as money and paddy-lending business. Dayanidhi had two sons Balunki, father of the plaintiff and Banian, original defendant No. 1 who was given in adoption to Haribandhu. While the family was joint, Haribandhu Fakir and Balunki died. Some dissensions having occurred, Madhab and Raghunath, son of Fakir separated from the family, both in mess and property, in or about 1917. Therefore, the other two branches of Dayanidhi and Baman continued as joint family with the former as the Karta. On Dayanidhi's death, plaintiff and Baman with his children continued to live jointly but the former being a minor, the latter managed the family and its properties as the Karta. Baman, original defendant No. 1 who was the Karta of this joint family with joint family funds started a cloth shop in the name of one of his sons (defendant No. 2) and a rice mill in the name of his grand son (defendant No. 5), besides embarking upon a paddy purchasing agency business in the name of defendant No. 2. The immoveable properties alleged to have been acquired by Baman as Karta of the joint family are described in Schedule Ka, the moveables in Schedule Kha, the paddy purchasing agency in Schedule Gha and lands acquired in the name of defendants Nos. 2 and 5 in Schedules Uan and Cha. The 'ornaments which plaintiff claims to have belonged to his mother are described in Schedule Ga of the plaint. In all these properties, plaintiff claims to be entitled to Re. -/8/- annas share and has sought partition thereof.

(3.) IN conclusion, for the reasons we agree with the finding of the trial court that plaintiff has failed to prove that the Gha Schedule property or the rice mill constituting Items 211-239 or the cloth and iron business included in Schedule Kha were joint family ventures started and carried on with funds furnished by Baman. Therefore, it has been rightly held that plaintiff is not entitled to a share therein. IN the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.