The relinquishment of property rights does not bar inheritance unless exercised during the transferor's lifetime under Section 43 of the T.P. Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This second appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellant in this second appeal was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.199 of 1990 and appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.50 of 1996.

The respondents in this second appeal were the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1(a) to 4 respectively before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.199 of 1990 and respondents before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.50 of 1996.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 in this second appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.199 of 1990 against the defendants was a suit for partition.

4. The case of the plaintiff as per the averments made by him in his plaint was that, the Schedule ‘A’ genealogy given in the plaint is his family pedigree and the properties described in Schedule ‘C’ are the suit properties for partition.

As per the ‘A’ Schedule genealogy, Dama Sahu was the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants. The said Dama Sahu died leaving behind his widow wife Guri Dei and two sons, namely, Banamali Sahu and Anadi Sahu. After the death of Dama Sahu, Guri Dei died leaving behind Banamali Sahu and Anadi Sahu as her two sons as well as her successors.

Banamali Sahu died in the year 1950 leaving behind his two sons i.e. Dinabandhu Sahu (defendant No.2) and Binod Sahu (defendant No.3).

Anadi Sahu died in the year 1980 leaving behind his two sons and one daughter i.e. Dayanidhi @ Daitari Sahoo (plaintiff), Rajkishore Sahu (defendant No.1) and Arnapurna Mohapatra (defendant No.1/a).

Defendant No.4 is the son of the plaintiff.

The properties described in Schedule ‘C’ of the plaint is the part of the properties described in Schedule ‘B’. The properties described in Schedule ‘C’ i.e. A0.196 decimals of Plot No.1341 under Sabik Khata No.45 originally belong to Guri Dei wife of Dama Sahu. The suit properties were recorded in the name of Guri Dei in the R.o.R. published in the year 1931 settlement.

Out of A0.196 decimals of suit Plot No.1341, Guri Dei sold A0.040 decimals to one Lalita Devi. After selling that A0.040 decimals, Guri Dei kept and possessed the rest properties of Plot No.1341 i.e. A0.156 decimals as owner of the same. After the death of Guri Dei, the said properties i.e. A0.156 decimals of Plot No.1341 left by Guri Dei devolved upon her two sons i.e. Banamali Sahu and Anadi Sahu. In its next settlement, the said A0.156 decimals was recorded jointly in the name of Banamali Sahu and Anadi Sahu and accordingly, Banamali Sahu and Anadi Sahu became the joint owners over the suit properties i.e. A0.156 decimals described in Schedule ‘C’ of the plaint. As such, Banamali Sahu had half share and Anadi Sahu had half share in the suit properties. When Banamali Sahu died in the year 1950 leaving behind his two sons i.e. Dinabandhu Sahu (defendant No.2) and Binod Sahu (defendant No.3), the half share of Banamali Sahu in the suit properties devolved upon his two sons i.e. defendant Nos.2 & 3 simultaneously.

Father of the plaintiff i.e. Anadi Sahu was selling Ganja and opium without license. For which, police and excise officials were coming before Anadi Sahu and were giving threat to prosecute and arrest him. So, the plaintiff quarreled with his father for his said illegal business and by that time, he (plaintiff) had already married and he had a motor cycle repairing shop inside the suit premises. To which, his father i.e. Anadi Sahu forcibly locked up due to quarrel with the plaintiff for the aforesaid reason and threatened plaintiff that, unless he (plaintiff) execute a Nadabi deed in his favour in respect of the suit properties, he (Anadi Sahu) will not open the shop in the suit properties, in whic