AKSHAYA KUMAR PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO understand the case of the parties the admitted inter se relationship is required to be stated. The following genealogy gives that particular which is ascertainable from the facts stated in the impugned judgments :

(2.) PETITIONER is the daughter's son of the common ancestor Madan. The opposite party members are the sons through the 2nd wife. Petitioner claims an equal share with the opposite party members on the properties of Madan on the ground that Madan died in 1967 and his married daughter Sobhagini predeceased him in 1966 and therefore petitioner is a Class I heir in accordance with the provision in the Hindu Succession Act to succeed to the properties of Madan together with the other Class I heirs and therefore, the Land Record during the consolidation be prepared accordingly.

(3.) IT also appears from Annexure 4, i.e., the judgment delivered by the Consolidation Officer on 21.2.1984 that properties fallen to the share of Chandra Sekhar, Sadhu and Prafulla were further divided, on consent amongst their respective sons on the basis of amicable partition and accordingly allotted plots in such partitions were directed to be recorded separately in their names.