JAGANNATH MOHANTY Vs. CHANCHALA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by defendants 1 and 8 and arises out of a suit for partition. In order to appreciate the controversy in the present case, it is necessary to set down the family pedigree which is shown below : One Bidyadhar had four sons, namely, Madhu, Gopinath, Gangadhar and Ekaclasi. Madhu had three sons, namely, Gopal, Jayram and Nanda. Of them, Nanda died long ago and we are not concerned with that branch. Jayram died in the year 1930. Jagannath defendant No. 1 is the eldest son of Jayram and Swarnalata defendant No. 8 is Jagannath's wife. Jayram had another son by name Krushna who died in the year 1947 and the plaintiff Chanchala is admittedly Krushna's widow. Defendant No. 2 is the son of Gopal and defendants 3 and 4 are grandsons of Gopinath. Defendant No. 5 is the grandson of Gangadhar. Defendants 6 and 7 represent Ekadasi's branch being his great grandson and son respectively.

(2.) IN the year 1964, Chanchala instituted the suit for partition giving rise to this appeal claiming an eight annas share in the properties covered by Schedules A and D, a four annas share in the property covered by Schedule B and one anna share in the C schedule property. According to her, after Bidyadhar's death, his properties were divided amongst his sons. The B schedule property fell to Madhu's share and the C schedule property remained undivided. Jayram therefore had an eight annas share in the schedule B property and consequently the plaintiff claimed a four annas share therein. IN the C schedule property Madhu had a four annas share and consequently Jayram had two annas share therein. The plaintiff therefore claimed a one anna share in the C schedule property. So far as properties covered by schedules A and D are concerned, it is the plaintiff's case that these properties belonged exclusively to Jayram and consequently the plaintiff claimed an eight annas share therein. Defendants 9 to 21 were impleaded in the suit as alienees of some of the properties forming the subject-matter of the suit.

(3.) THE plaintiff's husband was admittedly the son of Jayaram Mohanty and the younger brother of defendant No. 1. It is on that footing that she has filed the suit for partition claiming a share in Jayaram's properties. Defendant No. 1 seeks to defeat her claim on the allegation that her husband had been adopted by his maternal uncle Lokanath Swain and the onus lay upon him to establish by satisfactory evidence that such adoption had taken place. After a careful examination of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are satisfied that not only defendant No. 1 has failed to establish adoption by cogent and satisfactory evidence but that the circumstances indicate that no such adoption could have taken place. THE learned subordinate Judge was therefore, correct in rejecting the Plea of adoption. In view of this finding, it is unnecessary for us to answer the further question whether the adoption if true is valid in law.