SANTILATA SAHU Vs. SABITRI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT No. 2 has filed this First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1991 and 15-3-1991 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, sonepur in Title Suit No. 18 of 1982.

(2.) THE facts as narrated in the records are as follows : respondent No. 1 as plaintiff filed the suit claiming 1/4th share out of the suit properties. He has attached a map showing the portion where the suit house has been constructed by her. Plaintiff's case is that, Jagatram was the common ancestor of the parties. He was owner in possession of the properties. After his death, Byasadev succeeded to the suit properties. Byasadev is the father of plaintiff. He died leaving behind defendant No. 1 his widow and two daughters, i. e. , plaintiff and defendant No. 2, as his legal heirs. Other defendants are coparceners. In the year 1971 while the father of the plaintiff was alive, she out of her own income constructed the house on the suit land with consent of her parents and resided in that house. The map showing the portion of the land on which the house stands has been exhibited as Ext. A. She spent nearly Rs. 8,000/- for construction of the house. Jagatram died in the year 1971. Byasadev died in the year 1980. After the death of Byasadev, plaintiff demanded for partition of the suit house claiming exclusive share. Since defendants did not agree to the said proposition, plaintiff filed the suit. All the defendants have been set ex parte except defendant No. 2 who contested the suit by filing her written statement. In her written statement, while she admitted the relationship between the parties, she denied other averments made by the plaintiff and took a specific stand that the suit house was constructed by Byasadev their father. During his life time he had adopted defendant No. 6 as a son. After the death of Byasadev, defendant No. 6 is entitled to a share. Since the suit house is a dwelling house, except defendant No. 1 and her adopted son defendant No. 6 none are entitled to inherit the dwelling house and plaintiff being a female heir is not entitled to any share in the said house. On that ground she has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, the learned court below framed as many as five issues which are as follows :