JUDGMENT

The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 7/06/210 of 1998 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed therein by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge (FTC), Jagatsinghpur decreeing the suit preliminarily in part, has filed this appeal. The suit filed by the appellant has been decreed preliminarily in part declaring 1/4th share of the plaintiff defendant no. 1,2 and 4 each over the schedule-A property and 1/3rd share of plaintiff, defendant no. 1 & 2 over schedule-B property. The property described in item no. 1 and 2 of the schedule –C has been ordered to be devided in equal half between defendant no. 1 and 2.

2. For the sake of convenience, to avoid confusion and for clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the Court below.

3. Plaintiff-defendant No. 1,2 and 3 are the brothers being sons of Nari Dalei. Defendant No. 4 is their sister, the only daughter of Nari. It may be stated here that Nari was originally the defendant no. 3 and he has died during pendency of the suit. The wife of the defendant no. 2 has been arraigned as defendant no. 5.

It is the case of plaintiff that the parties are members of Hindu joint-family. The plaintiff is serving as a Junior Engineer under the State Government in the department of R & B, whereas the defendant no.2 is serving as Senior Accountant in the office of the Accountant General, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

It is stated that the plaintiff used to contribute some money to the family for maintenance of father and meeting other expenses every month. Property described in schedule-A of the plaint is said to be the ancestral property of the parties in their joint possession. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 each are having 1/4th share over the same. Following the father’s suite, the defendant No. 1 was and has been carrying on fish business during his life time. The eldest son of defendant no. 1 is said to be serving in the office of the Accountant General as a Clerk and was staying with defendant no. 2. It is asserted that defendant no. 2 used to take all his salary and in lieu thereof was providing food till his marriage in 1997. Out of income of the plaintiff-defendant No. 1,2 and3, the properties described in schedule –B & C are said to have been purchased from different persons at different times. It is vehemently asserted that the said properties are joint-family properties in joint possession of the parties. In further clarifying the matter, it is pleaded that the schedule-B properties was purchased in the name of the plaintiff-defendant No. 1 and 2, whereas schedule-C property was purchased in the name of defendant no. 1 and 2 and at that time, the plaintiff was residing at his place of service. The plaintiff thus claims that he himself, defendant no. 1, 2 and 3 each have 1/4th share over the schedule-B and C properties. The properties described in schedule-D are situated at Bhubaneswar in different places. It is averred that plaintiff defendant no. 1 and 2 proposed to purchase some properties in the capital of the State, in suburb areas. Accordingly, the Plaintiff-defendant No. 1 and 2 and eldest son of defendant No. 1 contributed the consideration money for purchase of said properties and the money was entrusted to defendant no. 2. However, he purchased properties under lot-I, II and III in his name and lot-IV for in the name of his wife in-stead of purchasing the same in the name of Plaintiff-defendant No. 1 and 2. It is sated that out of the income of plaintiff, defendant no. 1 and 2 as well as the eldest son of defendant no. 1, the properties described in schedule-D has been so purchased and over the said properties, the plaintiff has his 1/3rd share and defendant no. 1 and 2 have 1/3rd share each. Defendant no. 5, the wife of defendant no. 2 is said to be a name-lender having absolutely no right, title and interest over the properties shown to have been purchased in her name. Similarly, defendant no.