Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 951
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D. Dash, J.
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Satrughna Sahoo and Ors. – Respondents
R.S.A. No. 102 of 2018
Decided On : 19-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.K. Mishra, J. Pradhan, S. Rout, P.S. Mohanty and S.K. Biswal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific and clear pleading in partition cases, and the legal consequences of property devolution upon the death of the owner.
Headnote:
Partition - Code of Civil Procedure - [Orissa Survey Settlement Act, section 43] - The court addressed the partition of properties and the devolution of property rights upon the death of the owner. The court also discussed the legal consequences of the record of right pertaining to specific properties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the partition of ancestral properties and the devolution of property rights upon the death of the owner. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the record of right in respect of certain properties was erroneous and not binding upon him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not support the claim of adoption of a son by the deceased, and that the properties had devolved upon the plaintiff and other co-sharers. The court also held that the request for partition was not specific and clear, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: The issues included the claim of adoption, the devolution of property rights, and the validity of the record of right pertaining to specific properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence did not support the claim of adoption, and that the properties had devolved upon the plaintiff and other co-sharers. The court also found that the request for partition was not specific and clear, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to cost was made.
JUDGMENT :
D. Dash, J.
1. The appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed in assailing the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Khurda in R.F.A. No. 58 of 2015 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khurda in C.S. No. 18 of 2011.
The appellant as the unsuccessful plaintiff had carried the first appeal under section 96 of the Code and that having been dismissed; he is now before this Court with this appeal.
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. The suit is one for partition of the properties described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint for declaration that the record of right in respect of land under sabik khata No. 47, plot No. 58 admeasuring Ac. 0.060 decimals corresponding to hal khata No. 02, plot No. 74 of an area of Ac. 0.042 decimals of mouza Khalipatna, is erroneous and hot binding upon the plaintiff.
4. One Ananda Sahoo is the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons namely, Rama, Laxman and Satrughana. Out of them, Satrughana is the defendant No. 1 and his wife-Annapurna is defendant No. 2. the two daughters are Sita and Tulasi. Said Tulasi is defendant No. 4 whereas defendant No. 5 to 7 are the three sons of Sita. Rama Sahoo and his wife Dhobani Sahoo, died issueless. It is stated that they had not adopted any one so as to directly succeed to their properties. So, it is said that upon death of Rama and his wife Dhoboni, their interest in the property devolved upon the plaintiff and other co-sharers.
This plaintiff is the son of Laxman Sahoo and defendant No. 3 is his sister.
It is stated that Ananda during his lifetime had sold some of his property to Annapurna by registered sale-deeds.
The plaintiff's further case is that in the year 1988, a family partition was effected between three sons of Ananda and it was by way of execution of a deed of partition on 04.05.1988 which had been registered. As per that partition, land of mouza, Chuda as stated in the plaint was allotted to Rama Chandra. It is said that the all the co-sharers enjoyed the lands falling to their respective shares. It is alleged that after the death of Rama, defendant No. 1 and 2 during the last settlement operation by influencing the authority have got the land of Rama recorded in the name of Dhoboni and Annapurna, the defendant No. 2 who are the purchasers of the land from Ananda Sahoo by registered safe-deed dated 26.08.1978 under sabik khata No. 47, plot No. 57 admeasuring Ac. 0.030 decimals of mouza Khalipatna corresponding to hal khata No.:2, plot No. 42 measuring Ac. 0.42 decimals and defendant No. 2 has got her name. recorded In respect of that Ac. 0.42 decimals by striking out the name of Dhobani. So, that record of right of the year 1993, is attacked as erroneous and not binding on the plaintiff. It is staled that except the land of mouza Chuda, other properties have been recorded jointly in the names of Dhobani and Annapurna-defendant No. 2 even though they were living and enjoying the property separately. It is stated that when the plaintiff and others being thus in joint possession of the properties, on 15.12.2000, the defendant No. 1 and 2 threatened the plaintiff not to come over the suit land, for which on 20.12.2000, the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 1 to partition the properties in metes and bounds and that having not been paid any heed to, the present suit has been filed.
5. Defendant No. 1 and 2 contested the suit. It is their case that there had already been a completed partition between co-sharer in the year 1988 and therefore, the question of inheriting the property of Rama Chandra and Dhobani by the plaintiff and other co-sharers does not arise. Dhobani having purchased property of her father-in-law, the same was her Stridhan and thus, it has to devolve upon her parents. The defendan
