LAWS(ORI)-1959-1-9

GANGADHAR JENA Vs. UCHHAB JENA AND ANR.

Decided On January 28, 1959
Gangadhar Jena Appellant
V/S
Uchhab Jena Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a decision of the 2nd. additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, dismissing the Plaintiffs suit against the Defendant No. 1 on contest and ex parte against the Defendant No. 2.

(2.) THE Plaintiff is the Appellant. The Defendant No. 1 is alleged to be the adoptive father of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No. 2, who was a purchaser from the Defendant No. 1 in respect of certain properties did not contest the suit. The Defendant No. 1 alone fought this litigation against the alleged claim of the Plaintiff, his alleged adopted son. The suit was one for partition filed by the Plaintiff for division of the properties in equal share. The properties which were the subject -matter of the suit were 'Ka and 'Kha schedule properties Ka schedule properties being immovable properties and 'Kha schedule properties being movable properties. The Plaintiff claimed all the properties included in 'Ka and 'Kha schedules which all, according to him, belonged to the joint family consisting of himself and his adoptive father, Defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 in the written statement denied the allegations in the plaint. The very status of the Plaintiff as the adopted son of the Defendant No. 1 was challenged. In course of the hearing of the suit, however, the status of the Plaintiff as the adopted son was conceded on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 and the trial proceeded on that basis.

(3.) IN support of his contention the Plaintiff relied mainly on the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4. The Plaintiff also relied on the evidence of the Defendants witness D. W. 3 which, according to the Plaintiff, supported his (Plaintiffs) version of the case. The Plaintiff also relied 011 certain documentary evidence including entries in a Rokar (ext. 9). that Daily Cash Book, of the year 1936 relating to the grocery shop. It was conceded on behalf of the Plaintiff that the business was initially the self -acquired business of his father, the Defendant No. 1 but subsequently became joint property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1