JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this appeal questioning the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar in Title Suit No. 41 of 2002.

The appellant as the plaintiff had filed the suit for partition of the properties described in Schedule A of the plaint which has been dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

3. Case of the plaintiff:-That the parties are Hindus and governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The genealogy given in the schedule-B of the plaint is to the effect that Fakira and Bhikari were two brothers. Fakira died leaving behind his two sons namely, Chintamani and Benudhar. Chintamani died leaving behind three sons namely, Natabar, Dasarathi, the plaintiff and Giridhari, the defendant no. 6 and a daughter who has been arraigned as defendant no. 7. Benudhar pre-deceased Chintamani leaving behind his widow Usha and two daughters arraigned as defendant no. 8 & 9. Defendant no. 1 and 2 are the two sons of Natabar and defendant no. 3 to 5 are their three sisters. Bhikari being dead, the defendant no. 10 to 14 presently stand as his successors. Purchasers of different portions of the suit land have been joined in this suit as defendant no. 15 to 18.

It is stated that after death of Benudhar, Usha had instituted a suit for partition i.e. OS No. 45/52 which had been decreed and in that suit, land measuring an area of Ac. 0.084 decimals situated in village Atoperbada Pokharitola had been kept segregated and allotted for meeting the maintenance of Fakira’s widow namely, Sula Bewa. It is further stated that after partition, Chintamani constructed a house over his share of land and started living separately from Usha. The plaintiff being in Government service in view of insufficiency of accommodation in the allotted homestead of Chintamani, lived in a rented house and then subsequently resided in the house of Usha on payment of rent. Sula and Chintamani stated to have died on 13.07.1972 and 12.09.1972 respectively.

In the record of right published in the hal settlement lot 1 of schedule-A land has been recorded in the name of the heirs of Chintamani and Benudhar; lot-2 land have been recorded in the name of Chintamani even though Ac. 0.10.1/2 decimals of land was allotted to him and Ac. 0.091/2 decimals had been allotted to Usha in that earlier partition suit i.e. O.S. No. 45/52. After death of Usha, defendant no. 8 & 9 sold their interest in the said properties described in lot-1 of Schedule-A and the land to the extent of Ac. 0.09.1/2 decimals, from lot-2 of schedule-A to the plaintiff by two registered sale-deeds dated 10.04.1978. The plaintiff thus, claims his exclusive entitlement to Ac. 0.09.1/2 decimals of lands from lot-2 of schedule-A besides the interest of defendant no. 8 & 9 over the property under lot-1 of schedule-A. It is next stated that the land in lot-3 of schedule-A given to Sula, wife of Fakira for maintenance, was however recorded in the name of heirs of Chintamani in the hal settlement. It is averred that the properties described in lot-4 of schedule-A being the property of Fakira which he had got from his brother was also jointly recorded in the name of Fakira and Bhikari.

Plaintiff asserts that since he was in Government service and most of the time was staying in his work place far away from the native place and as his elder brother Natabara was not keeping good health, the settlement operation went unattended by them when for that Gridhari who was not at all looking after the family affairs also did not take any interest. However, it is said that the plaintiff has been paying the rent regularly for such lands. It has been pleaded that Natabar and his widow died on 27.05.1991 and 19.09.1999 respectively.

It is averred that defendant no. 1, 2 and 6 did not allow the plaintiff to possess any part of their ancest