Judgment

R. DASH, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the fora below has preferred this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2009 and 24.10.2009, respectively, passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No.106 of 2008 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2008 and 30.8.2008, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in C.S. (I) No.9/2007 dismissing the Suit.

2. The appellant as plaintiff filed the Suit seeking partition of plaint Schedule ‘A’ property with further prayer for permanent injunction. Plaintiff’s case, in nutshell, is that plaintiff and D.1 to D.3 are the successors-in-interest of late Subudhi Panda who had three sons, namely, Dharamu, Bhikari and Natabar. While they were in jointness, Natabar died issueless. Plaintiff is the only son of Bhikari. D.1 to D.3 are the three sons of Dharamu. Out of the rest of the defendants, D.7 is the wife of D.2. D.4, 5, 6 and 8 to 11 are strangers to the family against whom no relief is claimed but since their names appear in the R.O.Rs., they have been arrayed in the suit. However, the plots recorded in their names have been excluded