The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of property ownership and the role of the 'Karta' in a joint family, based on the evidence presented by the parties.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1989 and 30.11.1989 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Angul in T.S. No.40 of 1984, the unsuccessful defendant No.1 has filed this appeal.

2. The plaint story in brief reveals that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the three sons of one Jayakrushna Sahoo. Other defendants are tenants in respect of the suit house. It is the case of the plaintiffs that contesting parties (plaintiffs and defendant No.1) to the suit belonged to village Matagajpur in the district of Cuttack. They shifted to Angul for the purpose of earning their livelihood. They initially started Hotel business in the name and style of ‘Hindustan Hotel’ at Angul bus stand in the year 1951. By then, the plaintiffs were minors and defendant No.1 acted as the Manager of the Hotel and the plaintiffs were helping him in its management. They were living in a rented house at Amalapada in Angul town. Their father, Jayakrushna Sahoo by then was pretty old, devoid of clear vision, was hard of hearing and his hands were trembling due to old age. He was also bedridden and physically incapable. The family had a handsome income from the Hotel business and out of such income they purchased Ac.0.60 decimal of land at Amalapada (for short ‘the suit land’) from one Sashi Bhusan Garnaik vide RSD dated 29.05.1953 for a consideration of Rs.1,500/-. The defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of incapacitation of the father, the age of the plaintiffs as well as his status in the family purchased the suit land in his name without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. On purchase, they constructed a thatched house out of the income from the said Hotel business and were residing therein. Subsequently, they constructed a pucca house over the suit land by incurring loan and utilizing the compensation, the family had received for acquisition of their ancestral properties at Matagajpur by the Railways. The said house was rented out to Telephone Department on monthly rent of Rs.90/-from 1957 to 1970. The rent was being collected by defendant No.1 and the loan was repaid out of the same. Their father, namely, Jayakrushna Sahoo had also purchased another piece of homestead land at Angul town and subsequently sold the same to one Maheswar Sahoo for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-and the sale proceeds were also utilized for repayment of the loan obtained for construction of the suit house. After, the marriage of plaintiff No.2 in the year 1970 dissension arose in the family. Defendant No.1 shifted to a portion of the suit building, which was vacated by the Telephone Department. The rest portion of the suit house was rented out to different persons. The plaintiffs resided in the thatched house over the suit land. The defendant No.1 collected a good amount of money from defendants 2 to 4 (the tenants) towards rent and appropriated the same. Since the year 1970, plaintiffs were separated in mess from defendant No.1. Their parents stayed with them. Jayakrushna died in the year 1975 and their mother died in the year 1977. In the year 1972, defendant No.1 negotiated with one Sudhakar Pradhan to sell Ac.0.10 decimal of land from the suit land, but the plaintiffs protested to such attempt. As the defendant No.1 had taken some advance from said Sudhakar Pradhan, the latter filed TS No.3 of 1975 against defendant No.1. In the year 1976, the defendant No.1 again made an attempt to sell a portion of the suit land to one Ramanath Sahoo, but due to intervention of the plaintiffs the same could not be materialized. The defendant No.1 in order to deprive the plaintiffs from their legitimate share created disturbance with an intention to evict the plaintiffs by closing the common path and by constructing some houses in front of the thatched house in which the plaintiffs were staying. Thus, the plaintiffs finding no other alternative filed suit claiming 1/3rd share each in the suit land as well as 1/3rd share from the rent co