NATABAR PRADHAN Vs. CHUDAMANI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.4.1988 and the decree dated 6.5.1988 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Champua passed in T.S. No. 10 of 1984 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for partition, defendant No. 1 before the learned lower Court has preferred this appeal. Respondent No. 1 (since dead) was the plaintiff before the learned lower Court. Consequent upon her death, her son and daughter have been substituted and arrayed as Respondent No. 1(a) and 1(b). Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 are defendant Nos. 2 to 9, respectively. The genealogy furnished by the plaintiff in the plaint is not in dispute. As per the genealogy Gananath Pradhan is the common predecessor who is the recorded owner of the plaint schedule 'A' land. Gananath had four sons, namely, Jadumani, Bhikari, Jagannath and Natabar. Jadumani died leaving behind two daughters, namely, Ahalya and Dukhini (the daughters are not arrayed as parties to the partition suit). Plaintiff is the daughter of Bhikari Pradhan. Jagannath Pradhan died issueless. Natabar Pradhan is defendant No. 1.

(2.) BASING on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) IS the suit bad for non -joinder of necessary parties?