JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. : This is a plaintiff’s appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Anandpur in T.S. No.62/78-I dismissing the prayer of the appel¬lant for partition of schedule ‘B’ properties of the plaint.

2. Plaintiff’s case, in brief, was that Bhaigo Rout and Mali Rout were brothers and Schedule ‘B’ property was their joint ancestral property. Chakradhar Rout, the father of defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.2 was son of Bhaigo Rout whereas defendant Nos.3 to 6 and husband of defendant No.7 are sons of Mali Rout. It was claimed that in the year 1928 there was a family arrangement wherein Late Chakradhar got Schedule ‘A’ land in his share for exclusive enjoyment and possession and he con¬tinued possession over that land till 1972. Chakradhar, in order to meet the necessity of the family sold the suit land to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.600/- by means of registered sale deed on 7.10.1972 and delivered possession of that land whereafter the plaintiff remained in possession and enjoyment of that land. Chakradhar died in the year 1976. After his death, taking advantage of the fact that defendant No.1 was minor and defendant No.2 is an illiterate pardanashin lady, defendant Nos.3 to 7 started trouble over the suit land in order to grab that property. So to resolve the trouble, plaintiff requested defend¬ant Nos.3 to 7 for partition of Schedule ‘B’ property and for allotment of Schedule ‘A’ land to him. The said defendants did not pay any heed to his request and on the contrary they forcibly reaped away the crop of the suit land. So, finding no alterna¬tive, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition.

3. Defendant Nos.1,2,4, 5 and 6 filed separate written statements denying the averments made by the plaintiff and plead¬ing, inter alia, that there was never any family partition, that the suit land was never allotted to Chakradhar for his exclusive possession and enjoyment, that Chakradhara was a drunkard and an irresponsible person and he was never the Karta of the family. They claimed that there was never any family necessity demanding sale of the suit land and execution of any sale deed by Chakrad¬har, if any, was without their knowledge and consent. They also denied that the plaintiff ever possessed the suit land or ac¬quired any right and title over the same. The contesting defend¬ants also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that there is no cause of action and that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Defendant Nos.3 and 7 did not file any written statement and were set ex parte.

Considering the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following eight issues.

(i) Is the suit maintainable ?

(ii) Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file the suit ?

(iii) Did Chakradhar Rout exclusively acquire the suit property as per the schedule ‘A’ of the plaint on the basis of any partition effected between himself and his co-sharers ?

(iv) Is the sale deed executed by Chakradhar Rout in favour of plaintiff genuine, valid and for consideration ?

(v) Has the plaintiff acquired right, title, interest and pos¬session over the suit property as per schedule ‘A’ of the plaint ?

(vi) Are the suit properties as per schedule ‘B’ of the plaint liable to be partitioned ?

(vii) Is the plaintiff entitled to be allotted schedule ‘A’ property of the plaint in the partition ?

(viii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ?

4. To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined five witnesses and produced the registered sale deed dated 2.10.1976 and the voter list of the village Fakirpur, which were marked as Exts.1 and 2. The contesting defendants examined three witnesses and produced documents, namely, Khatian No.995 of mouza Fakirpur, rent receipt, certified copy of Khatian in respect of Khata No.76 of Mouza Fakirpur, Certified copy of Khatian in respect of Khata No.345 of mouza Fakirpur and these documents were marked as Exts.A to D re