RAJASHREE MOHANTY Vs. AMITA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is in challenge of the order dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nayagarh in I.A. No.117 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No.203 of 2005 dismissing the appellant's petition under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C.

(2.) THE appellant is the plaintiff -petitioner before the learned lower court. She filed the suit for declaration that under a W ill dated 8.4.2005 executed by late Debadutta Mohanty she is entitled to administer the plaint schedule properties in terms of the conditions embodied in the W ill and for permanent injunction restraining Defendant -O.P.No.1 from dealing with the plaint schedule property in any manner.

(3.) THE stand taken in the plaint, in nutshell, is that the plaint Schedule properties were acquired by the deceased from his own income. His widow had no contribution to the acquisition of such properties. The deceased was suffering from Anchylising Spondylitis. W hen his condition deteriorated gradually and he needed full time care from his wife, the latter deserted him on 20.10.2004 and left her matrimonial house taking her minor child (R.2) with her to take shelter in her parents' house at Choudwar. Being disgusted the deceased executed the W ill on 8.4.2005 appointing the appellant, his own sister, as the administrator of his assets completely disentitling his widow from inheriting the plaint Schedule properties with further stipulation made in the W ill that in case the minor child comes and stays with the deceased's parental family she will get the entire properties, otherwise, the appellant shall spend the entire property for any social cause. So far probating of the W ill is concerned, the plaintiff has taken the stand that since Nayagarh is an ex -state, no probate/letter of administration is necessary.