APARTI BEWA Vs. SUNA STREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the appellant against a reversing judgment. The plaintiff's suit is for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. A genealogy appended to the plaint would show the relationship of the parties. SAITA | ____________________ ______________________ | | | rushi Pathani Daughter--Widow Aparti W- Pana Bewa Sona Street d. 1 d. 2 Plaintiff. | | chakra. Daughter Mst. Hira (died ). The plaintiff's case is that Rushi and Pathani died in a divided status and the disputed properties fell to the share of Pathani. Pathani died before 1932. Soon after Pana (defendant No. 2) was remarried. So in the settlement of 1932 the daughter Hira was recorded. Hira died on 13-11-57 and after her death the plaintiff is entitled to the property and the possession thereof.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 alone contested the suit. She took two-fold defence. Firstly, the plaintiff was the daughter of one Kantha Jena and not the daughter of Saita jena, and secondly Chakra Jena was alive and was a preferential heir to the plaintiff.

(3.) BOTH the Courts concurrently found that the plaintiff is the daughter of Saita jena and that Chakra was alive. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Chakra was a preferential heir and was entitled to the disputed property. The learned lower Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff was entitled to the property after the death of Hira.