P. K. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) IN this Letters Patent appeal, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 6 have challenged the judgment dated 16-9-1989 in First Appeal No. 91 of 1975 of this Court, which had been preferred against the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 28 of 1972-I of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak. Plaintiff in that suit was the appellant and now respondent No. 1 in this appeal. Defendant No. 6 was the respondent No. 6 in the First Appeal, but his widow and son filed this Letters Patent appeal and the widow being dead, out on prayer of the above appellant her name has been deleted from the record.

( 2 ) THE brief narration of the background fact will reveal the dispute between the parties. The plaintiff in title Suit No. 28 of 1972 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak has given the following genealogical table to show the inter se relationship between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for partition claiming herself to be the daughter of Sanatan, who admittedly died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. Admittedly, parties are Hindus governed by the Mitakshara School of personal law a