GOPI CHAND ARYA Vs. SM BEDAMO KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of a suit for partition instituted by the plaintiff-respondent on the allegation that the suit properties belonged to the joint family, of which her husband Khaderan Sahu was a member at the time of his death. First Appeal No. 285 has been preferred by defendants 3 to 5 and First Appeal No. 294 has been preferred by defendants 1, 9, 10 and 11.

(2.) It appears from a genealogy attached to the plaint that the parties are members of the family of one Tilak Sao who left behind two sons, Bhattoo Sao and Karoo Sao. The branch of Karoo Sao is represented by his son Bhogal (defendant No. 2) and Bhogal's sons, defendants 12 to 14, Bhattoo had two sons, Horil and Bhalu; Bhalu being the father of Khaderan, the husband of the plaintiff. The daughter of the plaintiff, Mt. Parwati Devi alias Paro Devi, is an intervenor defendant in the suit. The remaining defendants, namely, defendants 1, 3 to 11 and 15 represent the branch of Horil.

(3.) The case put forward by the plaintiff was that her husband died in the year 1939, and, therefore, after his death, she was entitled to 1/3rd share in the entire joint family properties asserted by her.