INDRAMANI PATI Vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2, 9 and 10 are the appellants before this Court. Respondent No. 1 filed the suit for partition of the B and C schedule properties and the suit having been decreed in the manner mentioned in the judgment and decree of the trial Court, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) Before discussing the rival claims of the parties to the suit, it is necessary to refer to the genealogy of the family for convenience. (See Genealogy Table below) The above genealogy indicates relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 8. B and C schedule properties are ancestral homestead lands of the family of (Contd. on Col 2) the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8 and had been recorded in the names of Rama Pati. Bhabani Dibya, Bhagaban Pati, Gouri Pati. Kanhu Pati, Sripati Pati and Nari Pati. Case of the plaintiff and respondent No. 1 is the original ancestor Panu Pati had two sons namely. Bauri and Balaram and after death of Panu Pati both Bauri and Balaram received 8 annas share each. In the year 1965. when there was a partition by metes and bounds, out of the homestead plots, the properties described in Schedule B fell to the branch of Bauri and the properties described in C-schedule fell to the branch of Balaram and after such partition both the branches were possessing their shares exclusively. Further case of the plaintiff is that Arjunt belonging to Branch of Bauri died in the year 1971 leaving behind his brother Lochani and! sister Charu who is defendant No. 1 before the Court below. Lochani died leaving behind his sister Charu as sole legal heir. So far as Laxman is concerned, he died leaving behind his daughter Bhabani who inherited 1/4th share of Bhabani which fell to share of Bauri. On the death of Bhabani, Lochani and Arjunl inherited said l/4th share as reversioners and accordingly both have got 8 annas share in the family properties. According to the plaintiff, Lochani died issueless and Charu had one son namely Narayan who claims to be the son of Lochani. Further case of the plaintiff is that C-Schedule properties fell to the branch of Balaram in which plaintiff had l/6th share, defendant No. 2 had l/5th share, Alekha had 1/6th share and Jujesthi had 1/6th share. So far as 1/3rd share of Padana, out of 8 annas of branch of Balaram is concerned, the same was inherited by his two sons, Sripati and Nari. Nari sold his 1/6th share to Basudev Panda who is the daughters son of Sripati. Sripati transferred his 1/6th share to Uma, one of his two daughters by registered deed of gift. Thus the C-schedule lands which fell to the share of the branch of Balaram, Basudev and Uma together had 1/3rd share and Uma died leaving behind her son Bidyadhar Das who inherited her l/6th share. On 7-1-1959 Bidyadhar sold his l/6th share in C-schedule land to Basudev Panda. Basudev Panda had earlier got 1 /3rd share apart from l/6th share of Bidyadhar purchased by him and he sold his l/3rd share in favour of Alekh Pati (defendant No. 6). defendant No. 2 and the plaintiff. On 30-9-1961, from out of the purchased properties as aforesaid, plaintiff claimed to have l/4th share. On 25-4-1962 Alekh sold 1/4th share from out of the purchased land under a registered sale deed on 30-9-1961 to defendants 8, 2 and plaintiff and from out of the said purchased properties plaintiff claims l/3rd share. Apart from the above, plaintiffs further claim is that on 28-2-1967 he purchased A0.02 decimals from out of plot No. 2507 (B-sched-ule) from Arjuni Pati and on 8-7-1970, plaintiff, defendant Nos. 2, 8 and Alekh purchased A0.01.3 kadis from the suit plot No. 2508 from Lochani Pati in which plaintiff claims to have l/4th share. Again it is claimed that the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 9 purchased A0.02.4 kadis from suit plot No. 2507 and A0.00.6 kadis from the suit plot No. 2508 from Arjuni Pati in which plaintiff claims to have l/3rd share. On the basis of above, plaintiff claims partition of the properties including the lands purchased by him under different deeds dated 30-9-61, 25-4-62, 28-3-67, 8-7-70 and 11-9-70.

(3.) Defendants 2 to 9 filed written state ment stating that in the year 1955 there was a partition by metes and bounds between two branches of Bauri and Balaram in respect of the B and C schedule properties belonging to the family. In the C schedule properties allotted to branch of Balaram. plaintiff had 1/6th share, Jujesti had 1/6th share and Basudev and Uma together had l/3rd share. Uma died leaving behind her son Bidyadhar who inherited her 1/6th share. On 7-1-59 Bidyadhar sold his 1/6th share to Basudev Panda, who after such purchase, acquired l/3rd share in the C-schedule properties. On 30-9-61 Basudev Panda sold his 1/3rd share in favour of Alekh Pati, defendant Nos, 2 and 8 and the plaintiff. On 25-4-62 Alekh sold his 1/4th share in the aforesaid purchased lands to defendant Nos. 2, 8 and plaintiff and his l/6th share in C-schedule properties was inherited by his legal heirs, defendants 3 to