DEBARAJ PRADHAN Vs. GHANSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 3 to 5 have carried this appeal against the judgement and decree of the learned Sub ordinate Judge of Nayagarh in a suit for partition. The relationship of the parties is available from the genealogy given below : Defendant No. 2 has been adopted out of the family. 'Ka' Schedule property with an extent of 4.36 acres admittedly constitutes the ancestral assets. Kha to Chha schedule properties were acquired jointly in the names of plaintiff and defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 between 17-9-1955 and 10-12-1965 and the particulars of these acquisitions appear from a chronological statement below :- Sl. No. Date Exhibit Particulars 1. 17-9-1955 4 45 decimals of land acquired for Rs. 100/- in the name of all the five from D.W.1 2. 27-3-1957 2 32 decimals of land (Schedule 'Kha') purchased by all the five members for a consideration of Rs. 675/3. 5-1-1962 3 88 decimals of land (Gha Schedule) purchased by all the five members for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- from D.W.1 4. 9-4-1965 B some homestead land ('Una' Schedule) purchased for Rs. 400/- in the name of all the five. 5. 5-8-1965 A some homestead land purchased for Rs. 1,000/- in the names of all the five members from D.W.4 (described in Chha Schedule.) 6. 10-12-1965 1 13 decimals of land in 'Chha' Schedule purchased for Rs. 200/- in the names of all the five members from D.W. 3 Plaintiff claimed half share in the 'Ka' schedule property as also in the properties described in 'Kha' to 'Chha' schedules on the allegation that the acquired property had been purchased out of joint family nucleus.

(2.) There was no dispute from the side of the defendants about the plaintiff's moiety share in the 'Ka' schedule property. They, however, maintained that in the six items of acquired property each of them, i.e. plaintiff, defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 had one-fifth share and they had no objection to plaintiff getting partition of his share on such basis. They pleaded that each of them had contributed towards the consideration of the acquired property and they relied upon a Panch Faisala (Ext. C) dated 28-7-1967 in which plaintiff had accepted one-fifth share of each of the defendants in these properties.

(3.) At the trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 5 and five more witnesses in support of his stand. Defendants examined 6 witnesses also including defendant No. 1 (D.W. 6). They examined the vendor of Exts. 3 and 4 as D.W. 1, the vendor of Ext. 1 as D.W. 3 and the vendor of Ext. A as D.W. 4. They also proved Ext. C by examining D.Ws. 2 and 5.