PURNA CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. GHANASHYAM SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is brother of Haramani Sahoo, the deceased Plaintiff in O.S. No. 22 of 1993 of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri. She figured as Respondent No. 1 in Title Appeal No. 60 of 1999 of the Court of District Judge, Puri. On her death, Petitioner filed application for substitution. That was rejected by Learned District Judge as per the impugned order passed on 4.5.2002. As against that order, Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 259 of 2002. In view of amendment of Section 115,C.P.C. in 2002, Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No. 9878 of 2003 under Article 227 read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a matter of abundant caution. Thus, on consent of the parties, the Civil Revision and the Writ Petition were heard analogously and this common Judgment shall abide the result in both the cases.

(2.) HARSHAMANI , the original Plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 228 of 1993 claiming for decree of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/ -from her husband, i.e., Defendant No. 1/Appellant Ghanashyma Sahoo together with the prayer to charge the suit properties described in schedule A to F towards maintenance in favour of the Plaintiff and for order of permanent injunction against Defendants not to alienate the suit property. Her allegation in the plaint was that her marriage with Defendant No. 1 was solemnized in the year 1970. Two sons and daughter were born out of wedlock, but to their ill luck, none survived. In the year 1988, Defendant No. 1 accepted Defendant No. 3 as his concubine and out of that relationship, a child i.e. Defendant No. 5 was born. Defendant No. 2 is the brother of Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 is the minor son of one Banambar Sahoo. According to the case of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 alienated plaint schedule properties to Defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 jointly and severally but illegally.

(3.) DEFENDANT nos.3 and 5 filed joint written statement claiming to be the purchasers and in possession of the properties. They disputed to plaint averments and contested on the issue of creating charge over the suit property as against claim of maintenance of the Plaintiff.