BIBEKA SAHOO Vs. JEMAMANI ROUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 29.4.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Athmallik in Title Suit No.25 of 2000.

(2.) APPELLANTS were defendant nos.1(a) to 1(e) whereas respondent no.1 was the plaintiff, respondent nos.2 to 7 were proforma defendant nos.5 to 10, respondent nos.8 and 9 were defendant nos.2 and 3, and respondent no.10 was defendant no.4 in the suit. Defendant nos.1(a) to 1(e) were substituted in the suit upon death of original defendant no.1 Sumitra as her legal heirs.

(3.) AS is evident from the genealogy Paikira, Mani and Gokula were three sons of Laxman. Suit lands originally belonged to Laxman which were subsequently recorded jointly in the names of Paikira, Mani and Gokula. Gokula died issueless. After death of Paikira the suit lands were recorded in the names of his wife Tilotama and Mani. Defendant no.1-Sumitra and defendant no.7' s wife Subarna were daughters of Paikira. After death of Tilotama suit lands were recorded in the names of deceased defendant no.1 Sumitra and Mani in Mutation Proceeding No.311 of 59-60 and also in the Hal R.O.R. These facts are not in dispute.