SADHU CHARAN PATTANAIK Vs. SUKADEV PATTANAIK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nayagarh in RFA No. 19/5 of 2002.

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

(3.) Plaintiff'S case is that one Bhagirathi had two sons namely, Dama and Pura. Madhab is the son of Dama whereas Paramananda is the son of Pura. Madhab died leaving behind his son Digambar and Paramananda died leaving behind his son Kanhu. Kanhu's branch is represented by his grandson Suka, the defendant no,1 and Tilottama, the daughter-in-law (son's wife), the defendant no.2. Digambar's daughter is Sashi who is defendant no. 3. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of Digambar. It is stated that Karunakar died in the year 1986 and Digambar died in the year 1989. Madhab and Pura were living in a joint family till their death. Thereafter, Digambar and Kanhu continued as such. Likewise after the death of Digambar; Kanhu and his son Karunakar, the plaintiff being adopted son of Digambar and the defendants continued to live in a joint family and the ancestral property including the suit land stood jointly recorded. It is stated that sometime thereafter the plaintiff and defendants separated their cultivable lands and as such they have also alienated the land in their possession as of their share whereas the suit properties are said to have never been partitioned by metes and bounds, the reason being that the same is the homestead land, although the parties have been possessing the same separately in portions as per convenience as finds noted in the record of right. The defendant no. 1 is said to be possessing more lands having further let out a portion of the house standing over the suit land on rent. Digambar during his lifetime is said to have sold some land in favour of defendant no. 3 who in turn is said to have executed a deed of relinquishment of her right over the rest of the joint family property. It is stated that in course of time, the plaintiff demanded for partition of the suit land by metes and bounds which was not paid any heed to by defendants being in an advantageous position. Therefore, he filed the suit.