The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of joint Hindu family can be rebutted by direct evidence or by course of conduct, and in this case, the exclusive ownership of the acquired property by one brother entitled him to the entire compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte.

3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 20.08.1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Seraikella in Land Acquisition Case No.122 (109) of 1986 whereby and whereunder, learned court below has answered the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Swarnrekha Project under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and held that the petitioners have got 1/3rd share over the property and accordingly, the compensation award be paid to all the parties and also ordered that the award be prepared to the share as per the land of the parties.

4. The case of the applicants in the learned court below who are the respondents in this appeal is that the land of Khata no.224, in total 0.90 decimals, which were acquired for the Swarnrekha project has been recorded jointly in the name of Surendra Mandal- the father of the opposite party, Debendra Mandal and Suresh Mandal. Surendra Mandal, Debendra Mandal and Suresh Mandal are the three sons of Rash Bihari Mandal and they acquired the lands in question jointly from the common family fund in the name of Surendra Mandal who is the eldest brother and karta of the family. All the brothers were governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law and they came in joint cultivating possession of the land and in the recent survey before filing of the application, the lands in question were recorded in the joint name of all the three brothers. Surendra Mandal died leaving behind his only son while Debendra Mandal died leaving behind his three sons who are the petitioners. The sons of Surendra Mandal and Debendra Mandal inherited the entire share of their fathers collectively and came under the joint cultivating possession and paid rent jointly. It is the case of the petitioners that there has not been any partition between the parties or their ancestors and according to the recent settlement, before filing of the objection before the land acquisition officer by the petitioners, Surendra, Debendra and Suresh each of them have got 1/3rd share but the award was made in the name of the opposite party alone although, all the parties have 1/3rd share in the property.

5. The case of the opposite party-appellant on the other hand is that the applicants have no right, title or interest over the acquired property and the ancestors of the parties have separated in the year 1941 and since the partition of the ancestral property in the Seraikella Raj Darbar, they are coming in separate possession of their separate lands and the land has been purchased by Surendra Mandal in his own name after partition and the father of the opposite party came in possession over the lands and paying rent for that but in the revisional settlement in the year 1961, the land in question was wrongly recorded jointly in the name of Surendra Nath Mandal, Debendra Nath Mandal and Suresh Mandal. It was also pleaded that Surendra Mandal was never the karta of the family and Debendra and Suresh have also acquired property separately unconnected with Surendra Mandal.

6. The learned trial court framed the following questions to be considered :-

“Whether the parties have already been partitioned or all the parties have got interest and title over the land in question?”

7. In support of their case, the applicant-respondents altogether examined four witnesses. P.W.1- Manoranjan Sahu has stated that his grandfather namely Khetro Mohan sold the land in question to Surendra, Suresh and Debendra Mandal by registered sale deed. Surendra was the eldest brother. Surendra was the karta of his joint family hence, the sale deed was prepared in the name of eldest brother but the consideration amount was paid from the corpus of the Hindu undivided family and all the three brothers together came in possession of the said land aft