SMT. RAMA SAHU Vs. SUJATA SAHU & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bhadrak in R.F.A. No. 13 of 2014 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhadrak in Title Suit No. 355 of 2003. The appellant being the plaintiff when had filed the suit for declaration that she is the married wife of Narayan Prasad Sahu and that defendant no. 3 to 7 along with her are the successors of deceased - Narayan Prasad being the mother and children of Narayan Prasad through plaintiff -appellant; the defendant no. 1 and

(2.) had also filed counter claim seeking the declaration that the marriage between the plaintiff -appellant and Narayan Prasad did never take place and if at all it is so found, it is a void marriage as because the earlier marital tie between the Narayan Prasad and defendant no. 1 has been subsisting all along. The trial court while dismissing the suit and thus refusing to grant any relief to the plaintiff -appellant as prayed for, decreed the counter claim declaring respondent -defendant 1 as the legally married wife of Narayan Prasad. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the marriage between herself and Narayan Prasad had taken place on 15.11.1978. It was solemnized as per the Hindu caste, custom. It is further stated that after marriage, plaintiff remained in her matrimonial house with Narayan as husband and wife and defendant no. 4 to 7 are the children born out of said wedlock. The defendant no. 3 is the mother of Narayan. It is further stated that defendant no. 4 to 7 were admitted in the school for the purpose of their education by Narayan Prasad and he was taking all their care. On 31.01.2002, Narayan Prasad retired as Senior Clerk while working in the Office of Tahasildar, Jeypore and shortly thereafter on 03.08.2002 he breathed his last. It is further stated that defendant no. 7 had performed the obsequies of Narayan Prasad. The claim of the defendant no. 1 and 2 as the successors of Narayan Prasad is said to be false. As the plaintiff failed to obtain the legal heir certificate as applied for showing her as the one of legal heirs of Narayan Prasad, she had no other alternative but to file the suit. Defendant no. 1 and 2 in contesting the suit asserted that Narayan Prasad's legally married wife is defendant no. 1 alone and their marriage had taken place in accordance with the caste, custom and rites of the parties. Support for the purpose has been derived from an order passed in Title Suit No. 15 of 1978 which was a matrimonial proceeding and which was disposed of in terms of compromise between the Narayan Prasad and defendant no. 1 by grant of monthly maintenance to defendant no. 1 by Narayan Prasad followed by an order of judicial separation between them. It is stated that plaintiff being a clever lady had kept illicit relationship with Narayan Prasad. But no marriage between them was ever performed. If at all any such marriage had taken place, the same is said to be void in presence of defendant no. 1, continuing with the status as the legally married wife of Narayan Prasad. Defendant no. 2 is said to be the son of Narayan Prasad through defendant no. 1. The marriage certificate produced by the plaintiff is alleged to be a manufactured one. It is also stated that defendant no. 4 to 7 have no right over the property left by Narayan Prasad being not the legal successors of Narayan Prasad. The status of defendant no. 3 as the mother of Narayan Prasad is also denied. With such pleadings, a counter claim has been raised seeking a declaration that defendant no. 1 is the legally married wife and defendant no. 2 is the son of Narayan Prasad and as such they have the right to succeed to the property left by the Narayan Prasad, when the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 to 7 have nothing to do with the same. The plaintiff had filed written statement to the counter claim further asserting her status as also the status of defendant no. 3 to 7 vis -à -vis Narayan Prasad and denying the status of defendant no. 1 and 2.