EPILI KORA Vs. EPILI PAPAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

(2.) The respondent as plaintiff no.2 instituted the suit for partition of the suit schedule properties and to grant maintenance. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Saibo had three sons, namely, Budhia, Mangala and Kora. Mangala was adopted to another family. Budhia married to plaintiff no. They constituted a Hindu undivided joint family. Sarasamma is the daughter of Budhia and plaintiff no. Budhia died on 18.10.70 leaving behind his wife plaintiff no.2 and daughter Sarasamma. Thereafter, plaintiff no.2 married to the defendant, younger son of Saibo, in the year 1971. Out of their wedlock, plaintiff no.1 was born on 8.3.197 Thereafter the defendant started ill-treating the plaintiffs and developed extra-marital relationship with another woman. While the matter stood thus, Saibo executed a registered settlement-cum-partition deed on 26.7.77 and partitioned the joint family properties between the plaintiff no.2, the wife of his elder son, her daughter Sarasamma and the defendant wherein plaintiff no.1 was allotted a share described in 'Kha' schedule property. Out of income of the joint family properties, the defendant purchased some lands in his name and benami in favour of others in order to deprive the plaintiffs from their shares. The partition deed dated 26.7.77 is not valid and binding on plaintiff no.1. The plaintiffs demanded partition and maintenance. But then, the defendant maintained a sphinx like silence.

(3.) The case of the defendant is that he had not married to plaintiff no.2. Plaintiff no.1 is not his son. Plaintiff no.1 is the son of his elder brother, late Budhia and plaintiff no.2. He married Parama, daughter of Pujari Shama of village Chudungapur. Since the plaintiff no.2 is a quarrelsome lady, his father, Saibo partitioned his self-acquired properties between them by means of a registered partition deed dated 26.07.1977, Ext.