NILAMANI DHAL Vs. RADHAMOHAN JIW THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT 1 is the appellant against the reversing judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. The appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the suit-land belongs to the family deity, Radhamohan Jiew and that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 are the joint Marfatdars of the said deity.

(2.) THE genealogy of the family has been given in the appellate judgment and it is unnecessary to reproduce the same here. It would be sufficient for the purpose of this appeal to state that Achutananda Dhal had four sons. Ananda, Gopi, purusottam and Brundaban. Balakrushna is the son of Ananda. He took Anukula in adoption from Gopi's line and some years after such adoption, Tarakanta his natural son, was born to him Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Tarakanta and defendant 1 the appellant in this appeal is the son of Anukula. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 come from Gopi's branch, defendant 6 represents the branch of Purusotom and defendants 6 and 7 that of Brundaban.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of the deity Radhamohan Jiew for declaration that the suit-properties are the debottary properties of their family deity Radhamohan Jiew installed in village Guhati in Jaipur Sub-Division in the district of Cuttack and that they and defendants 1 to 7 are the joint Marfatdars of the said deity. In the current settlement records with the connivance of the defendants, the name of the deity as also the name of Tarakant, father of the plaintiffs, have been wrongly omitted. They accordingly file the present suit for a declaration that the suit properties are the debottar properties of their family deity radhamohan Jew and that they and the defendants are the joint Marfatdars and that the current settlement entry is incorrect and that they are entitled to four annas, one pie and half Ganda interest in the suit property. They also prayed for joint possession of the disputed property along with defendants 1 to 7