LAWS(ORI)-1963-4-6

GANESH MAHANTA Vs. SUKRIA BEWA

Decided On April 26, 1963
GANESH MAHANTA Appellant
V/S
SUKRIA BEWA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 3 to 5 are the appellants. The following geneology would show the relationship of the parties. GORACHAND MOHANT=lata (widow)| __________________________________________ | | | Sukria Nali (D-1) Nilamoni plff-1 =genesh (D-3) | | ______________________ | | | dharmu (D-2) Purna (Plff-2) Pratap (Plff-3)Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming one third share for plaintiff 1, one-third for plaintiffs 2 and 3 and one-third for defendant 1. The disputed properties belonged to Gorachand. On his death his widow Lata inherited these properties as a limited owner. On 8th May, 1946, she executed a registered deed of gift in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of Schedules B/1 and B/2 of the plaint and delivered possession. Plaintiffs filed original suit No. 138 of 1946-47 in the Court of the Munsif of Baripada challenging the alienation and obtained a declaration that it was not binding on their reversionary right beyond the life time of the widow. As both the Courts below have decreed the suit for partition in respect of the entire properties and as there is no dispute amongst the parties that schedules B/2 to b/4 are liable to partition, the history of previous litigation with regard to schedules B/2 to B/4 need not 69 mentioned. On the 13th February 1957 defendant 2 re-transferred schedule B/l property in favour of Lata by a registered document (Ext. B) styling it as "dana PRATYAHARA PATRA". On 19th October 1957 Lata transferred this very property by a registered sale deed (Ed. A) in favour of defendants 3 to 5. She died on 11th February 1958 whereafter the suit for partition has been filed.

(2.) THE defence is that Lata acquired full ownership after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act) and the transfer by Ex. A conveys full title in schedule B/1 property to defendants 3 to 5. The defence with regard to the properties in other schedules need not be mentioned in view of the undisputed position already stated.

(3.) MR. Mohanti advanced the following contentions:- (