SULEI BEWA Vs. GURUBARI RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are appellants. THE appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. Dhenkanal, in a suit for partition of the properties described in Schedule A to D of the plaint. Relief of declaration of exclusive title in regard to a house standing on plot No. 2797 was also asked for. THE plaintiffs also prayed for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 1.

(2.) THE parties are relations and their relationship is as shown below. THE plaintiffs claimed that Gurubari had been adopted out of the family since his childhood and he was actually enjoying the properties of Dama Rana, the adoptive father. Thus Gurubari had no share in the family properties, and in the properties of Kapila the plaintiffs have become owners and are entitled to their respective shares on division. THE defendant No. 1 demanded a share and created disturbance in the plaintiff's possession. Some of the properties were purchased jointly by Guranga and the defendant No. 1 and some others have been purchased by Gauranga. Gurubari and Dama together. That is why a partition became necessary and separate schedules have been given in the plaint.

(3.) THIS rule does not avoid the performance of the formalities required to be observed under Hindu Law. Therefore until a valid adoption is established under the law, a mere recognition retrospectively granted may not be sufficient in all cases to conclusively establish such adoption. It is quite possible, there may be cases where there would be a regular proceeding, disputes would be raised and the authority would determine the question about adoption. In such a case there may be an element of res judicata.