ANANTARAM MOHAPATRA Vs. TRINATH MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against a reversing judgment in a suit for partition.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 are the sons of late Satyabadi Mohapatra. They constitute a joint Hindu family. They remained in joint mess till 1961. As dissensions cropped up in the family, they were separated in mess, but continued to possess the joint family property together. Item no.1 of B-schedule property is the ancestral house. The same had been reconstructed by him. The house was mortgaged to one Raghunath Palo on 5.6.1931 for an amount of Rs.3000/-. The said amount with interest was paid by him to the mortgagee in the year 1969. Item no.2 of B-schedule property along with other properties had been sold to one Rama Chandra Palo, his father-in-law. The sale deed is nominal one. The vendee retransferred the land on 23.5.42 to their family in the name of defendant no.1 and his wife, defendant no.3. After sale, the same became the joint family property.

(3.) The defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that there is no existence of schedule A property. They denied the allegation that the sale deed dated 23.5.42 was a nominal one. Item no.2 of B-schedule property had been purchased by Gouri Pandian, mother of defendant no.3 by means of a registered sale deed dated 23.5.1942 in the name of defendant no.3 and her husband-defendant no.1. Record of right was published in the name of defendant no.3. The same is the stridhan property of defendant no.3.