BHOBANI BHOI Vs. GATI BHOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 137 of 1958. He sought for a decree of partition of the disputed suit properties as against some of the heirs of late Ananda and some of the descendant of late Baban. A compromise was effected in that suit allotting specific properties to the plaintiff and defendants in that suit. That was followed with a final decree. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 in the present appeal filed Title Suit No. 199 of 1969 to declare the compromise decree in T.S. No. 137 of 1958 being vitiated by fraud, forgery and collusion and not binding on him and for declaring his th share out of the joint family property. He also asserted that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 6 are respectively the share holder of th and share from the joint family property i.e. the suit land. In that suit, there was no prayer for allotment of share to others. It was also stated in that plaint that the present appellant (plaintiff in Title Suit No. 137 of 1958) is not the son of Late Sadhu and Uma, but he is the son of Guri i.e. a daughter of Late Bhima. The trial Court found substance in the claim of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and granted a preliminary decree in accordance with the prayer made. In course of final decree, th property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff, th share to the Defendant No. 1 and share to Defendant No. 6. As a consequence of that decree in Title Suit No. 199 of 1969 the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 137 of 1958 was set-a-aside. Thus the appellant (plaintiff in Title No. 137 of 1958) also filed an application for revival of Title Suit No. 137 of 1958 from the stage where it was before the compromise decree and to adjudicate that dispute in accordance with law. That prayer was turned down by the Courts below and that is how appellant is before this Court.

(2.) Inter se relationship amongst the parties which can be gathered from the judgment in Title Suit No. 199 of 1969 is as follows :

(3.) In Title Suit No. 199 of 1969 the findings recorded are to the effect that plaintiff is one of the grandsons of Late Ananda and the appellant Bhobani is not the son of Late Sadhu and Uma (his (widow). A finding was also recorded that the present appellant is the son of Guri. On a reference to the aforesaid genealogy and the findings recorded in Title Suit No. 199 of 1969, it goes to show that the coparcenary property of Gopal, Anand and Baban devolved on Arjuna Hari and Bhima and after death of Bhima in the year 1932, Arjuna and Hari succeeded to the entire property as surviving coparceners. In view of that and the then position of law Champa, Fula, Guri and Para, the four daughters of Bhima were found to have no right, title and possession after death of Bhima in 1932. As noted above appellant was not found to be the son of Late Sadhu and his wife Uma. Thus, judgment and decree were passed in T.S. No. 199 of 1969 in the manner already indicated.