B LALITA PRADHANUNI Vs. JASODA PADHUNUANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the composite judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ganjam -Boudh, Berhampur in T.A. Nos. 75 of 1980 (93/77) GDC) and 76/80(97/77 GDC) reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, Berhampur passed in T.S. No. 7 of 1975.

(2.) THE appellant -plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties mentioned in the plaint. Her simple case was that the suit properties belonged to one Kantaru Pradhan, who had three sons, namely, Narayan, Jagabandhu and Baraja. Baraja died when he was a child. So, after the death of Kantaru, the remaining sons, Narayan and Jagabandhu inherited the suit properties. Jagabandhu died in the year 1970 leaving his widow, the plaintiff and a daughter, namely, Ratna. Since the plaintiff was not given anything out of the joint family property, she demanded partition and on refusal of the same by Narayan, she filed the suit seeking half share in the property.

(3.) THOUGH this Second Appeal was admitted on several grounds, Mr. Goutam Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant raises only one legal question, namely, whether it was legally proper on the part of the 1st appellate Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff for non -joinder of daughter of the plaintiff and the alienee instead of giving opportunity to the plaintiff to bring those persons on record ? According to Mr. Mishra, in view of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 9 and Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. the Court should not dismiss a suit on the ground of mis -joinder or non -joinder of parties without affording opportunity to the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record by way of amendment or otherwise. In support of his submission, he cited the cases of Smt. Uma Dei v. Gokhei Parida and Ors. 1972(1) CWR 638, Sabasthi Nadar v. Savurimuthu Nadar 1998 (II) CLT 403, Jamal Mohammad and Anr. v. Saukat Ara and 28 Ors. 74(1992) CLT 963. Despite service of notice, respondents 1(a) to 1(e) did not appear to contest the appeal.