JUDGMENT

B.P. DAS, J. — This First Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 3.10.1981 and 5.11.1981 respectively passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 142 of 1972.

2. The plaintiff appellant-Nayana Sundari Bewa having died during pendency of the appeal has been substituted by her legal heirs, who are appellant nos. A.1/a to A.1/g. Defendant-respondent no.1 having died during pendency of this appeal, has been substituted by his legal heirs, i.e., R.1/a to R.1/i. Re¬spondent nos. 6 and 7 were expunged respectively by order no. 36 dated 1.12.1989 and order no. 53 dated 2.3.1989. The names of respondent nos. 8 and 9 were deleted by order no. 67 dated 13.1.1992. This appeal stood dismissed as against respondent no.9 vide order no. 61 dated 8.4.1990.

3. The present appellants 1/a to 1/g are all sons and daughters of plaintiff-Nayana Sundari Bewa, who filed the afore¬said suit bearing T.S. No.142/1972 for a declaration that D-1-Subash Chandra Behera, is not the adopted son of the plaintiff’s husband, late Bansidhar Behera, and as such, he is not entitled to the status and benefit of a son by virtue of the deed dated 29.2.1960, which is a void document; and for a declaration that the preliminary decree passed by the Sub-Judge, Cuttack in Title Suit No.74/1962 and further proceedings based thereon are null and void and the said Subash Chandra Behera is not entitled to any share thereunder and further to direct Subash Chandra Behera to render accounts of the management of the estate of the plaintiff during his agency and a Pleader Commission be appointed to take proper accounts to be submitted by Subash Chandra Behera and for a permanent injunction restraining Subash Chandra Behera from interfering with the estate of the plaintiff’s husband, which was vested on her.

For the sake of convenience, the genealogy given in the plaint is extracted herein below :-

Gajendra Behera

Bansidhar(dead) Dibakar (dead)

Nayana Sundari Bewa (Plff.) Jania Sundari Bewa (D-6)

Subash Chandra Behera

(Alleged adopted son)

(D-1)

Prakash Umesh Parasmani Saudamani

(D-2) (D-3) (D-4) (D-5)

4. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that late Gajendra Behera had two sons, Bansidhar and Dibakar. Plaintiff is the widow of Bansidhar and defendant no.6-Janaka Sundari is the widow of Dibakar. While Bansidhar and Dibakar were living in a joint Hindu family, Bansidhar, the husband of plain¬tiff-Nayana Sundari Bewa, died on 29.12.1955 in a state of joint¬ness with his brother-Dibakar, who died in 1963 leaving behind his widow, sons and daughters, who were defendant nos. 2 to 6 in the suit.

4(a). The joint family of Bansidhar and Dibakar was a well-to-do family in Cuttack town having vast landed property and considerable estate. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff inherited the properties left by her husband. Shortly after the death of Bansidhar Behera, dissension started in the family and both the branches were separated in mess and residence. Dibakar picked up quarrel with the plaintiff and filed T.S. No. 5 of 1956 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Cuttack against the plaintiff for partition of the joint family move¬ables. The plaintiff being a Pardanashin illiterate lady was unable to look after her estate, for which she had to take the assistance of her brother-Naba Behera, and her son-in-law Madhu¬sudan Behera. Naba Behera was a neighbour of the plaintiff at Bada Jobra, Cuttack. The suit filed by Dibakar ended in compro¬mise. The plaintiff obtained succession certificate in respect of the estate of her deceased husband from the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack, in Misc. Case No. 8 of 1956.

4(b). The plaintiff’s brother having frequently found fault with her son-in-law in managing the estate, the son-in-law of the plaintiff expressed his inability to continue to manage her estate any further and therefore, the plaintiff had no other alternative than to depend upon her brother for m