PRATIMA SAHOO Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of a common order dated 12.3.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jajpur Road in I.A. Nos.152 of 2011 and 48 of 2012 arising out of C.S. No.289 of 2011.

(2.) THE appellant is the plaintiff -petitioner before the learned lower court. She filed the suit for declaration of a registered deed of partition and four sale deeds, which are consequential to the partition deed, as illegal and not binding on her, besides praying for partition of the suit schedule property determining her legitimate share therein.

(3.) BALARAM Sahoo was alive when the suit was filed. He was arrayed as D.1 but during pendency of the suit he has died. During pendency of the suit a part of the suit properties has been sold to one Pravat Kumar Parida under a registered sale deed executed by Balaram allegedly at the instance of his sons. Therefore, said Pravat Parida has been arrayed as D.13. This part of the property consists of one Cinema Hall and four shop rooms. According to the plaintiff, the Cinema Hall and the shop rooms are running business. But after purchasing the properties Pravat Parida started dismantling the roof of the Cinema Hall. Prior to arraying Pravat Parida as D.13 the Plaintiff had filed I.A. No.152 of 2011 seeking interim injunction against Balaram, Surendra, Manoranjan and wife of Manoranjan. But after arraying D.13, another I.A. bearing No.48 of 2012 was filed. As already stated, both the I.As. have been disposed of by the impugned order. Balaram Sahoo, his sons and daughter -in -law took the stand that Balaram Sahoo being the absolute owner as per the prior partition, which took place in 1956, his daughters are not entitled to get any share in the suit property. That apart, the partition amongst the father and the sons under the impugned registered deed of partition took place before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force. Therefore, it is asserted, the daughters cannot claim share from the suit properties. Pravat Parida, D.13 has taken the stand that Balaram Sahoo sold a part of the suit property to him under registered sale deed No.1279 dated 1.5.2012 as he was in need of money for his treatment and the possession having been delivered to him, he is in physical possession of the properties alienated to him. The Cinema Hall standing on the property purchased by him being in dilapidated condition needs immediate demolition. However, it is not in dispute that Pravat Parida purchased the property during pendency of the suit.