MURALI RANA Vs. JASODA RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment and decree dated 14.3.1989 passed in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1988 by the then Subordinate Judge, Boudh confirming the Judgment and decree dated 22.2.1988 passed by the then Learned Munsif, Boudh in Title Suit No. 2 of 1987 is assailed in this Second Appeal by Defendant No. 1.

(2.) THE facts of the case had been elaborately described in the Judgments passed by both the Courts. Therefore, this Court refrains from reiterating the same, but then refers to only those facts, which are necessary for proper appreciation of the inter se disputes.

(3.) THE Trial Court after discussing the evidence in extenso came to the finding that Defendant No. 1 was the son of Arta through Laxmi and as such his is not entitled to the properties, which belonged to Tirtha. It further held that Ext.A, the so called relinquishment deed is not admissible in law and that the Xerox copy of the voter list filed by Defendant No. 1 cannot be accepted. It further came to the occlusion that the Defendant had totally failed to produce any document in support of his case that he is the son of Tirtha. On the basis of such finding the Trial Court decreed the suit. The Appellant assailed the decree passed by the Trial Court in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1988 before the then Subordinate Judge, Boudh. The Appellate Court after analysing the evidence confirmed the finding that the Plaintiff was the daughter of Tirtha and after the death of Tirtha, her mother Laxmi married Arta and through her Defendant No. 1 was born. It was further held that Laxmi re -married Arta before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, thus, she cannot take the properties of Tirtha with her. The Plaintiff being the only surviving reversionary of deceased Tirtha succeeded to his entire properties. Relying upon the orders passed in Mutation Case, the Appellate Court also confirmed the finding that the properties exclusively belonged to Arta and after his death the Plaintiff, daughter of Arta, being the only legal heir became the absolute owner thereof. The unregistered relinquishment deed (Ext.A) was held to be not genuine. On the basis of such discussions, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The said decree is assailed before this Court in this Second Appeal on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed for non -joinder of necessary parties.