SURENDRANATH SAHOO Vs. MOHENDRA SAMANTRAY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Shri I.C. Dash, learned Counsel for the respondents, submits that respondent No. 9 having died in the meantime, appeal cannot be heard without bringing his L.Rs. on record. Since the interest of respondent No. 9 is represented by other respondents. 1 am of the considered opinion that substitution is not necessary in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge. Puri, in Title Appeal No. 34/1 of 1985/84. The appellant was defendant No. 1 and respondents 1 to 4 were the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 125/64 of 1983/80. The other respondents, namely, respondents 5 to 11 were defendants 2 to 6. being the co -sharers of the plaintiffs. In the suit the plaintiffs prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) ONLY defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement. He urged that the suit was not maintainable since the suit property was no more joint family dwelling house of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 6. His positive assertion was that there was amicable partition between the parties whereupon they were possessing their respective shares separately. At first he (defendant No. 1) had interest from Ananda Samantray. father of defendants 2 to 4 under the registered sale -deed dated 23.3.1971 and subsequently purchased the 1/4th interest of defendant No.6 by registered sale -deed dated 1.7.1978. After purchase he amalgamated the same with his own land and has been possessing by converting it to a compact area. The suit property having lost the character of joint family qua the dwelling house, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.