The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of family arrangement, the nature of joint family properties, the right of female heirs to residence in the dwelling house, and the entitlement to partition over certain properties.

BASUDEVA PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Baripada in Title Suit No. 3 of 1978-I against the judgment and decree passed in a suit for partition have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) ESSENTIAL factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows :the plaintiff-respondents 1 and 2, who are sisters being daughters of late Jayakrushna filed the suit against appellant-defendant No. 1, Mahendra Mohanta, who is their uncle claiming their share in the joint family property. In order to appreciate the facts of the case it is profitable to quote the genealogy placed in the record:

( 3 ) LATE Birbal Mohanta had three sons, namely, Rabi, Laxmiram and Lokanath. There was a partition among the sons of Birbal in which Lokanath got certain landed properties. He acquired further properties during his lifetime. At the time of his death in 1962 Lokanath left behind 'b' Schedule properties. His son Jayakrushna, the father of the plaintiffs had pre-deceased him in the year 1960. Even during the lifetime of Lokanath, the defendant No. 1 Mahendra became the Karta of the joint family consisting of Jashoda, widow of Lokanath and Sabitri, defendant No. 2 (mother of the plaintiffs) and himself. The appellant No. 1 purchased some landed properties out of the surplus income of the joint family properties. The lands described in Schedules C-1 to C-8 belonged to Lokanath, father of Mahendra and Jayakrishna and out of the income from the aforesaid land, the appellant No. 1 Mahendra acquired Schedules C-9 to C-14 properties. The defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs jointly purchased the Schedule C-15 land from Balaram Mohanta and sold Schedule C-18 land to the said Balaram on the same day. The defendant No. 1 sold Schedule C-8 (a) properties to one Sunaram Majhi and purchased Schedules C-16 and C-17 properties in the name of his daughters Jagri (defendant No. 3) and Gopali Dei (defendant No. 4 ). Schedules E-1 and E-2 lands are portions of the properties of Schedule 'c' purchased in the names of defendants 3 and 5, the children of defendant No. 1 from Jasoda widow of late Lokanath out of the joint family funds by defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have not laid their claims for partition of C-18 Schedule properties, but they have claimed shares in Schedules C-1 to C-17 properties.

( 4 ) THE ancestral house was damaged, therefore, Lokanath and his brothers had constructed three separate houses. Schedule D-1 is a house which belonged to Lokanath, but is in possession of the defendant No. 1. Schedule 'f' properties are the moveables now held by defendant No. 1. Apart from the landed properties, the plaintiffs have also claimed the house situated in Schedule D-1 land and movables described in Schedule 'f'. Although the plaintiffs after their marriage are now residing in their father-in-law houses being close to the defendants' village, therefore, they use to come and supervise the agricultural operation. After marriage of Jagri, defendant No. 3, she along with her husband Ram Chandra are residing in the house of defendant No. 1. There was a family dissension and quarrel between the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 as a reason whereof the former demanded shares from defendant No. 1. But defendant No. 1 having refused to give their share, therefore, they filed the suit for partition.

( 5 ) THE defendants 1 to 13 are the descendants of Birbal Mohanta, who had 3 sons. Although all of them had been made parties to the suit, but the plaintiffs have particularly sought relief against the defendants 1 to 3. The Defendants 4 to 17 have either purchased the land from defendant No. 1 or some other defendants to whom the lands were alienated.

( 6 ) DEFENDANTS 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 filed their written statement. The defendant No. 2, who died during the pendency of the suit also filed her written statement along with defendants 1 to 6. The other defendants did not choose to file any written statement as such they were set ex parte.