An alienation of joint family property by the Karta is void ab initio in absence of legal necessity, necessitating partition among all co-sharers.

Judgment :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

1.The Appellants, who were defendants in the trial Court have preferred this appeal seeking to challenge the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna on 25^th June, 2014 and 10^th July, 2014 respectively in RFA No.24/2012 whereby, the appeal was allowed in part by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The trial Court, being Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhawanipatna by his judgment and decree passed on 11th September, 2012 and 22nd September, 2012 respectively in C.S. No.61/2009 decreed the suit of the Plaintiff for declaration and partition of the schedule lands. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the trial court.

Facts

2. The plaintiff9s case, briefly stated, is that the property under Schedule 8B9 was his self-acquired property though he had purchased the same in his name along with the names of his brothers Defendant No.1, Defendant No.2 and Biswajit Pradhan (his deceased brother) vide R.S.D. No.2822 dated 22nd May, 1972. Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.2,3 and 4 are all sons of Defendant No.1.

3. In so far as the property under Schedule 8A9 is concerned, it is claimed that the same is the ancestral property of the parties, which Defendant No.1 had received on partition from his brother Niranjan Pradhan. The said partition was effected as the size of family had increased and therefore, the co-sharers, being the plaintiff and his brother Niranjan Pradhan amicably partitioned the properties with each taking half share with the intervention of local gentries in the year 1970.

It is further claimed that though the Schedule 8B9 property was purchased in the names of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.2, 3 and Biswajit Pradhan, the Plaintiff parted the said land to Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Biswajit Pradhan in lieu of the share of Defendant No.1 in Schedule 8A9 lands. The said exchange was reduced to writing. He further claims to have improved and developed the Schedule 8A9 lands by transplanting different trees and also earned income by selling mangos and cashew nuts. He incurred an agricultural loan of Rs.15980/- from Medinipur Service Cooperative Society by mortgaging Ac.4.00 decs. out of Schedule 8A9 lands and repaid Rs.1420/- till 30^th June, 2008. In December, 2008 the Defendants asked the Plaintiff to part with cashew nuts, mangoes and teak trees from the Schedule 8A9 land, which being refused led to a quarrel. The defendants asked him to vacate the Schedule 8A9 land and forcibly trespassed thereupon. Further, in order to grab the Schedule lands the Defendants got the name of Defendant No.1 recorded in the R.O.R. in Khata No.1 in respect of Schedule 8A9 and the names of Defendant Nos.2 to 4 recorded in Khata No.38 under Schedule 8B9 behind the back of the Plaintiff in the current settlement by gaining over the settlement authorities. The Registered Sale Deed No.1921/2009 dated 28^th May, 2009 showing sale of land by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.4 is a manufactured document and the Mutation Case No.952/2009 and the order passed thereon is invalid. On such facts, the Plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the schedule lands along with declaration that R.S.D. No.1921/2009 is not binding on him with the alternative prayer of partition of Schedule 8A9 land to the extent of half share and Schedule 8B9 land to the extent of 1/3rd share.

4. The case of the Defendants, apart from admitting the relationship between the parties is that Defendant No.1 (since dead) has 8 daughters and 4 sons. The Schedule 8A9 land is ancestral lan