MADHABANANDA MOHAPATRA Vs. RABINDRANATH MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by some of the alienees from defendant 16 Abala Dibya, the widow oF one Kulamoni Pauigrahi who died on 18-5-1929. The plaintiff Indumati, claimed to be his daughter by his first wife Gurubari and sued for a declaration that the alienations made by defendant 18 in favour of the other defendants are not binding upon her reversionary interest as those alienations had not been made for legal necessity. All the defendants challenged the plaintiff's claim to have been the daughter of Kulamoni, and their allegation was that she was the daughter of Jadumoni Panigrahi, the natural brother of Kulamoni who had admittedly gone away in adoption to one Nidhi Panigrahi.

(2.) The two important issues framed in the suit were issue No. 2: "Is the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint, the daughter of Kulamoni?" and issue no. 10 : "Was there any legal necessity for the kabalas and are the kabalas genuine and for consideration?" The learned Munsif who tried the suit in the first instance held against the plaintiff on both the issues and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff having died, her song filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge and the decision of the trial Court was reversed by the learned District Judge. The appellate Court held, agreeing with the Munsif, that the alienations made by defendant 16 were not for legal necessity. But disagreeing with the finding of the trial Court he held that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that she was the daughter of Kulomani by his first wife, Gurubari. He accordingly reversed the decision of the trial Court and gave a decree to the plaintiff as prayed for in the plaint. It is against this judgment of the learned District Judge that the alienee-defendants have come up in second appeal.

(3.) The only point that has been seriously contested before us is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that she is the daughter of Kulamoni. In proof of her contention, the plaintiff mainly relied upon the credibility of the witnesses examined on her behalf and upon two documents, Exts. 1 and 2. The defendants also examined a number of witnesses to prove that the plaintiff was the daughter of Jadumoni, and in support of their case exhibited a few documents the most important of which are Exts. C, C-1, E, F, and F-1.