JUDGMENT :

S. PANDA, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh in C.S. No. 54/135 of 2011 rejecting an application filed to delete the property of a female Hindu not being a member of joint family as the said property was not acquired from the joint family funds.

2. The brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 1 as plaintiff filed C.S. No. 54/135 of 2011 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh for partition along with other reliefs. The plaintiff inter alia pleaded that he and defendant nos. 1 to 12 belongs to one family and one Dhanurjaya Mahapatra is their common ancestor. Dhanurjaya died leaving behind two sons namely defendant nos. 1 and 2 (opposite party nos. 2 and 3) and one daughter defendant no. 3 (opposite party no. 4). The plaintiff and defendant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the children of defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 12 is the wife of defendant no. 1. The petitioner is defendant no. 7. She is the wife of defendant no. 5. Defendant nos. 8, 9 and 10 are the sons of defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 11 is the wife of defendant no. 8.

3. After death of Dhanurjaya, defendant nos. 1 and 2 succeeded all his properties and possessed the same jointly with all manner of right Schedule "A" properties of the plaint are the ancestral joint family properties which were inherited from Dhanurjaya and acquired in the names of the family members from the joint family nucleus for convenience Defendant nos. 1 and 6 were looking after the family business till 2003 when the plaintiff joined them after completing his studies. Defendant nos. 1 and 2 looked after the properties in the Village - Laumunda. Defendant nos. 2 and 6 was the custodian of all the records of the joint family business and maintaining the accounts.

4. It was further pleaded that defendant no. 6 along with his wife, the petitioner, gained over defendant no. 1 and started ill-treating the plaintiff, his wife and children and defendant no. 12, mother of the plaintiff. Defendant nos. 1, 6 and 7 also misbehaved defendant nos. 4 and 5 along with their respective husbands. Subsequently, defendant no. 6 forbid the plaintiff from working with him and captured all the joint family business like Telco Service Station and BPCL Petrol Pump, He also started diverting the joint family nucleus to accumulate properties in the name of the petitioner with the help of defendant no. 1. As such they purchased landed properties in Village Arjunda and Karalmal along with one bus, one truck, one car in the name of the petitioner and the consideration money was paid out of the joint family property. The plaintiff, his family and defendant no. 12 are living together without deriving any income and property of the joint family, whereas defendant nos. 1, 6 and 7 are enjoying all the properties and earnings of the joint family properties. Defendant no. 12 asked defendant nos. 1 and 6 to pay the plaintiff some amount from out of the income of joint family property, but they refused. Hence the suit.

5. The petitioner-defendant no. 7 appeared in the suit and filed her written statement inter alia contending that she married to defendant no. 6 in the year 2000. She is well educated and hails from a family with business background. She took up business of her own out of her Stridhan. After accumulating some funds of her own she acquired the truck availing loan from HDFC Bank, Sambalpur Branch in the month of January, 2006. Out of her own income she purchased the landed properties described in Schedule-A (viii) and (ix) of the plaint and she purchased a bus availing loan from Bank of Baroda, Bargarh in the month of June, 2010. She further purchased a car availing loan from ICICI Bank, Bargarh. Therefore, the properties described in Schedule-A (viii) and (ix), B (v), (vi) and (xxiv) of the plaint cannot be said to be joint family properties and the same