MENJA NAIK Vs. BHIMA NAIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed calling in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rairangpur in RFA No. 14 of 2007.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) The plaintiff's case is that the parties are members of Schedule Tribe and as such are governed under Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. It is stated that one Samu Naik was the common ancestor and the land under item No. I of schedule 'B' of the plaint stood recorded in his name. He died leaving behind his four sons namely, Jagai, Jatua, Ramei and Sandu. On the death of Samu, all his sons jointly succeeded and possessed the said property. In the state of jointness, Jatua and Sandu died unmarried. So, Jagai and Ramei for sometime remained joint and cultivated the properties. After sometime for the sake of convenience, they resided separately and cultivated separate parcels of landed properties. It is stated that there was never any partition in metes and bounds between them. When such was the state of affair Ramei died leaving behind his only son Samu who cultivated the land under the cultivation of his father. Thereafter, Jagai also died leaving behind the defendants as his heirs. Accordingly, they possessed the land under the possession of their father. In the current settlement operation, the lands have been jointly recorded which have been better described in item No. II of schedule 'B' of the plaint. The plaintiff is the widow of Samu and he had four daughters. The plaintiff after the death of Samu when wanted for inclusion of her name as well as the names of her daughters in place of her husband Samu, in the Hal Record of Right and for that sought for the consent of the defendants, it was refused. So, she filed suit for partition of the properties as described in item No. II of schedule 'B' of the plaint.