SMT. SAKUNTALA MISHRA Vs. RAGHUNATH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No. 31/2002 and Second Appeal No. 32/2002 are the appeals from out of common Judgment passed in Title Appeal No. 49/1995 and Title Appeal No. 1/1996 respectively arising out of Title Suit No. 208/1989. First Appeal No. 153/1990 arose out of the Judgment passed in Title Suit No. 134/1979. For sake of convenience, in order to bring clarity and avoid confusion, the parties have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the Court below.

(2.) Defendant No. 2, Sakuntala Mishra had married defendant No. 1, Raghunath Mishra in the month of June, 1967 as per Hindu rites and customs, and during continuance of their relationship, they were blessed with a son namely Kishore Chandra Mishra, the plaintiff, in 1971. Subsequently because of dissention between husband and wife, Sakuntala Mishra and Kishore Chandra Mishra were forced to live separately from Raghunath Mishra. As because Raghunath Mishra neglected to maintain his wife and son, the plaintiff Kishore Chandra Mishra filed TS 208/89 before the Court of Sub-Judge, Kendrapara for partition of the ancestral property of Raghunath Mishra. By judgment dated 27.11.95 and Decree dated 02.12.95, the learned Sub-Judge, Kendrapara, preliminarily decreed the partition suit of plaintiff Kishore Chandra Mishra. Further, the learned Court below declared that defendant No. 9 Khirod Chadra Mishra (Natural son of elder brother of Raghunath Mishra) was not adopted son of Raghunath Mishra. Being aggrieved, Raghunath Mishra on his behalf as well as the Marfatdar of Nrushingh Nath Basudev Jew preferred Title Appeal No. 49 of 1995, and Khirod Chandra Mishra preferred Title Appeal No. 1 of 1996 before learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara, who heard both the Appeals together and by the judgment dated 08.10.2001 and Decree dated 20.10.2001 dismissed both the Appeal on contest and confirmed the judgment and the Decree of the trial Court passed in TS 208/1989, which are under challenge before this Court in Second Appeal Nos. 31 of 2002 respectively.

(3.) It is not out of place to mention that Sakuntala Mishra as the plaintiff had earlier filed TS 134/1979 against Raghunath Mishra and others for maintenance of herself as well as her minor son Kishore Chandra Mishra. By judgment dated 30.03.199.0 and Decree dated 11.04.1990, the learned Sub-Judge, Kendrapara dismissed the suit which is under challenge in FA No. 153 of 1990 before this Court. The above disputes being inter-related and based on same subject matter, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.