MURALIDHAR SUTAR Vs. BALAMANI SUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948, judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 185 of 1998 is assailed.

(2.) A brief reference to factual aspects would suffice. A suit was filed for partition by Balamani, the present respondent for a decree to the effect that he is the son of Kali representing one branch, and was thus entitled to half share in the property which originally belonged to one Dinabandhu, as branch of Dhadi was extinct, and the third branch was of Nidhi, the father of Hadibandhu the defendant. Following genelogy was set out in the plaint. Dinabandhu ______________________________________ | | | Mani Dhadi Nidhi - - - - | =Chhachi | | | Kali Hadibandhu | (Defendant) | Balamani (Plaintiff) The present appellants are the sons of Hadibandhu, the original defendant. Hadibandhu's stand was that plaintiff Balamani was not the son of Kali as claimed, and was only a foster child. He had been given 4 annas 6 paisa shame on the basis of partition by metes and bounds by way of family settlement, and therefore, the suit ws misconceived.

(3.) ON appreciation of evidence, the trial Court preliminarily decreed the suit with the finding that the plaintiff is the son of Kali, and there was no previous partition as claimed by the original defendant.