IMPORTANT POINT
A member of a joint family must include all joint family properties in a partition suit to ensure a complete and final partition.

ORDER

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Bhadrak on 09.07.2014 and 15.07.2014 respectively in T.A. No.48 of 2001, whereby the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhadrak on 28.02.2001 and 17.03.2001 respectively in T.S. No. 135 of 1989-1 was reversed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

3. Before delving into the facts of the case it would be apposite to refer to the genealogy of the parties as the suit is one for partition of ancestral properties.

The suit was originally filed by one Baishnab Barik as plaintiff No.1 and Damodar Barik as plaintiff No.2. Said Baishnab Barik having expired, was substituted by his surviving daughter Basanti Barik.

4. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

'1) In the absence of any issue as to whether plaintiff No.2 is adopted son of plaintiff No.l, which fact has been denied by the defendant in the written statement, whether the learned lower Appellate Court is justified in recording their respective findings on the existence of relationship between plaintiff Nos. l and 2?

2) Whether the observation of the learned lower Appellate Court that the suit has been filed without bringing all the joint family property to the hotch potch and without impleading all the necessary parties is justified in the eye of law?'

5. The case of the plaintiffs, briefly stated, is that Damodar claims to be the adopted son of Baishnab. A suit was filed for partition of ancestral properties situated in village Bhagada to the tune of Ac.5.69 dec. under C.S. Khata Nos.138, 270, 250 and 196. Baishnab claimed to have acquired Ac.1.33 % dec. by virtue of a gift deed executed by Kanhei in his favour on 11.08.1968 and also inherited the balance property of Kanhei. Damodar purchased Ac. 0.93 dec. from the original defendant No.2, Koili (since dead), daughter of Siva through a registered sale deed executed on 30.12.1977. Ac.0.80 dec. was recorded exclusively in the name of Baisnab under MS Khata Nos. 233, 231 and 132 leaving balance of Ac.3.01 dec. to their share. Hence, the suit for partition in respect of Ac.4.09 dec. of land recorded jointly in the names of plaintiffs and defendants under MS Khata Nos. 54, 323, 334, 335 and 336.

6. The defendants' case is that the common ancestor, Bimbei had another brother, namely, Bidei and they had around Ac.15.50 dec. of land in village Bhagada and Samsama Daulatpur. The son of Bidei had separated from sons of Bimbei and subsequently Kanhei and Hati separated from Siva and Pahi. Accordingly, Hati and Pahi alienated some property jointly from Bimbei's half share in village Bhagada and Samsama Daulatpur before current settlement for which note of possession was recorded in the name of Hati and Kanhei in the C.S. ROR in respect of the balance property which fell to their share. Similarly, the names of Siva and Pahi have been recorded in the C.S. ROR with separate note of possession in respect of the properties falling into their shares. Hati and Kanhei had alienated properties recorded in their names after current settlement to different persons, who were not parties to the suit. Siva died while living with Pahi jointly and therefore, his daughter Koili had no share in respect of his properties, which Pahi succeeded to by survivorship. The plaintiffs wrongly managed to record the name of Koili in some of the RORs of village Bhagada and also got two sale deeds executed by her only to prove that she had a share in the suit property. The plaintiffs also managed to make separate Khata in the name of Baishnab successfully and taking advantage of the same filed the suit in respect of the balance property recorded jointly. It was specifically pleaded that Damodar was neither the natural nor adopted son of Baishnab and therefore, his claim is not maintainable.

7. On the rival pleadings the tri