A suit for partition requires substantiating evidence of genealogy and heirs; mere allegations are insufficient. Equal shares were affirmed for the parties, reflecting the law of inheritance. This legal position was upheld in multiple judicial reviews.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

2. The appellant of this 2^nd Appeal was the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide C.S No.4 of 2008 and he was the appellant in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.10 of 2009.

The respondent of this 2^nd Appeal was the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.4 of 2008 and she was the respondent before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide R.F.A. No.10 of 2009.

The suit of the plaintiff (the respondent of this 2^nd Appeal) against the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.4 of 2008 was a suit for partition.

3. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff in her plaint in the suit for partition vide C.S. No.4 of 2008 before the trial court, the suit properties were originally belonged to the mother of the plaintiff and defendant i.e. Subhadra Biswas. The R.o.R of the suit properties was published in the name of Subhadra Biswas. Subhadra Biswas died leaving behind the defendant and the plaintiff as her son and daughter. After the death of Subhadra Biswas in the year, 1984, the suit properties devolved equally upon the defendant and the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff and the defendant inherited the suit properties left by their mother Subhadra Biswas. The plaintiff and the defendant were residing in one family and they both were enjoying the suit properties. The plaintiff had married, but, her husband deserted her, for which, since the year 1985, the plaintiff resided in her parents’ house. The defendant had given approximately 5 Bighas of land i.e. about 2 Acres of agricultural properties out of the suit properties to the plaintiff for her possession without any metes and bounds partition between them. When misunderstanding arose between the plaintiff and defendant concerning the possession of the suit properties, then, the plaintiff resided separately being separated from the defendant and after her separation, the defendant forcibly possessed the entire suit properties on dated 20.06.2007, for which, the plaintiff requested defendant for metes and bounds partition of the suit properties. But the defendant did not pay any heed to the same. For which, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.4 of 2008 against the defendant praying for partition of her half share from the suit properties.

4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit of the plaintiff vide C.S. No.4 of 2008, the defendant contested that suit of the plaintiff by filing his written statement taking his stands inter alia therein that:

The family pedigree of the plaintiff and defendant stated by the plaintiff in her plaint is not correct. According to the defendant, his father was Motilal Biswas and his mother was Subhadra Biswas. The Said Motilal Biswas and Subhadra Biswas died leaving behind the defendant as son and 4 daughters i.e. the plaintiff along with Gurudasi, Haridasi and Pramila. But, the plaintiff has approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.4 of 2008 by suppressing the names of her 3 sisters i.e. Gurudasi, Haridasi and Pramila. For which, the genealogy given by the plaintiff in her plaint is not correct.

As, this is a suit for partition, for which, Gurudasi, Haridasi and Pramila are necessary parties to the suit filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. According to the defendant, their father Motilal Biswas expired in the year-1973 and their mother Subhadra Biswas expired in the year 1984. After the death of Motilal Biswas and Subhadra Biswas, the defendant being their only son has been p