SUBASH CHANDRA PANIGRAHI Vs. RAJIB LOCHAN PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful Defendant No. 1 (Appellant) in this appeal has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub -ordinate Judge, Chhatrapur (as it was then) in Title Suit No. 31 of 1989 decreeing the suit preliminary making Plaintiff No. 1 (Respondent No -1) entitled to the share in "Schedule B, C and D" properties equal to that of the Defendant No. 1 (Appellant) with further direction to the Defendant No. 1 (Appellant) ­ (i) to render account to the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) in respect of the income of those properties; (ii) to pay Rs.75,000/ - towards the marriage expenses of Plaintiff No. 2 (Respondent No. 2); (iii) in making further provision of Rs.1 lakh to meet the marriage expenses of Plaintiff No. 3 (Respondent No. 3); (iv) to pay a sum of Rs.1500/ - per month to Plaintiff No. 2 and 3 (Respondent No. 2 and 3) from the date of filing of the suit till 19.12.1991 and (v) to pay a sum of Rs.700/ - per month as maintenance and educational expenses to Plaintiff No. 3 (Respondent No. 3) from 19.12.1991 till her marriage.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and for proper appreciation, the parties hereinafter are being referred to as they have been arranged in the original suit.

(3.) THE Defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing the written statement. While traversing the plaint averments, the main challenge has been levelled as regards the acquisition of the vacant land measuring Ac. 0.0400 dec. and installation of rice huller i.e. "Schedule ­ D" property. It is stated that the same was never purchased with the help of the surplus income from out of the ancestral joint family property which had fallen in the share of Defendant No. 1. In this connection, it is further stated that the said property purchased is his exclusive self -acquired property having been purchased from out of his own income that is salary and other source and therefore, it is asserted that the same is not liable to be partitioned. As regards other facts relating to the arrangement made in the divorce suit etc., the Defendant No. 1 has asserted to have never flouted in any manner.