JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs having been aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 31.03.2000 and 07.04.2000 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in Title Suit No.271 of 1993 have filed the appeal under (A).

The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being aggrieved by said judgment and decree have also filed the appeal under (B).

2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and preliminary decree as agreed upon by the learned counsel for the parties, those have been heard together for disposal by this common judgment.

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

The appellant No.2 (plaintiff No.2) having died during pendency of this appeal, his legal representatives have been substituted and they have joined hands with the appellant No.1 in pursuing the appeal.

4. Plaintiffs’ suit is for partition of the properties described in Schedule A, B and C. They claim 1/5th share for each of the three plaintiffs; 1/5th the share to defendant No.4 and 1/5th the share to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 over the properties, with a further prayer for allotment of 1/4th share to plaintiff No.3 (Respondent No.1) over the maturity value of the LIC policies of A. Bhaskar, the son of plaintiff No.3 as shown in the schedule ‘D”.

5. Plaintiffs case is that one A. Nageswar Senapati is the common ancestor and he died leaving behind his widow, plaintiff No.3 and three sons, plaintiff Nos. 1,2 and A. Bhaskar who is dead as well as a daughter, defendant No.4. Defendant Nos.1 is the widow and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the daughters of said deceased brother of the plaintiff No.1 namely, A. Bhaskar.

It is stated that A. Nageswar had some ancestral joint family properties and in a partition of the ancestral properties, schedule ‘A’ property fell to the share of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, their brother A. Bhaskar and mother, the defendant No.3. The partition is said to have been effected through a registered deed of partition dated 06.04.1985. It is stated that the plaintiffs and late A. Bhaskar constituted the Hindu joint family even after the death of A. Nageswar. A. Bhaskar was then pursuing his studies in medical science with the help provided from the joint family funds as well as timely contribution made by the plaintiff No.1. A. Bhaskar subsequently, joined the service and then left the same as per the decision of the members of the joint family and started private medical practice at Cuttack. it is stated that the house standing over the schedule ‘A’ property was renovated for the said purpose and in order to provide all such facilities for A. Bhaskar to carry on his private medical practice. It is further stated that on 16.4.1985, A. Bhaskar married defendant No.1. However, as the said relationship did not augur well, a matrimonial dispute had been initiated. It is stated that O.S. No.19 of 1998 had been filed in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. For this reason, it is said that A. Bhaskar could not concentrate in the private medical practice at Cuttack and finally decided to shift his field of operation to a village near Salipur. For the purpose, a piece of land in that village Naliamua as described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint was acquired. The acquisition although had been made in the name of A. Bhaskar, yet is said to have been made at the expense of joint family funds amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. The said property is thus claimed to be the joint family property. Unfortunately, before A. Bhaskar could properly start his private practice there in the village, he committed suicide on 20.9.1992. The plaintiffs claim that these properties in schedule A and B being the joint family properties, those including the movable which are described in the schedule ‘C’ of the plaint are liable to the partitioned. It is the further case of the plainti