SUMI DEBI Vs. PRANAKRUSHNA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, reversing the decision of the learned First Munsif of Cuttack decreeing the plaintiff's suit for partition of 6 annas interest in Ka schedule property and 8 annas interest in Kha schedule property and for separate possession.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that Nityananda and Raghu were brothers; that the plaintiff is the daughter of Nityananda and the defendant is the son of Raghu; that Gandharba, son of Nityananda died issueless leaving a widow Hemalata since deceased; that Nityananda and Raghu were separate in status though the properties had not been divided by metes and bounds; that the defendant and Nityananda were possessing a 10 annas and a 6 annas share in Ka schedule property and 8 annas share each in kha schedule property; that thereafter Gandharba jointly possessed the properties in respective shares along with the defendant; and that the plaintiff had inherited the properties after the death of Gandharba and had been in joint possession thereof with the defendant and hence filed the suit for partition of her share in the Ka and Kha properties.

(3.) THE learned Munsif decreed the title suit No. 226 of 1949, that is the suit under the present appeal and dismissed title suit No. 278 of 1949, that is the suit filed by the defendant for declaring the sale deed executed by Hemalata as invalid and not binding and that she was not the legally married wife of Gandharba. The learned Munsif found that there was a severance of status between Nityananda and the defendant; that the defendant was not the sole survivor of Nityananda and Gandharba; and that the plaintiff succeeded to the properties after the death of Gandharba as his heir, and had been in possession of the suit properties and was therefore entitled to partition.