A married daughter cannot claim partition of property solely owned by her father during his lifetime, following the cessation of the joint family status.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

The Appellant, by filing this Appeal under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30^th August 2022 and 12^th September 2022 respectively passed by the learned 1^st Additional District Judge, Baripada in R.F.A. No.24 of 2021.

The Appellant as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.07/533 of 2015/2020 and for partition. The suit having been dismissed, as the unsuccessful Plaintiff, she had carried Appeal under section-96 of the Code which too has been dismissed. Hence, the present Second Appeal is at the instance of the Appellant(Plaintiff) who has remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below being non-suited.

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 Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant No.1 is her father, whereas the Defendant No.2 is her sister. She has no brother. It is stated that they were living in undivided coparcenery family (quoted). It is stated that the suit land and other lands are the ancestral joint family properties which originally belonged to the grandfather of the Plaintiff namely, Akhay. In a partition which took place between Defendant No.1 and his brothers in Title Suit No.25 of 1995; the suit land was allotted to the share of the Defendant No.1. It is further stated that at the time of marriage of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 had orally partitioned the suit property between him and his two daughters which include the Plaintiff. He had kept the land under Plot No.355 appertaining to Khata No.142/88 measuring Ac.0.22 decimals and allotted the land under Plot No.530 appertaining to Khata No.142/97 measuring an area of Ac.0.20 decimals to the Plaintiff and another land which had been purchased at Similiguda in the District of Koraput to Defendant No.2 in the name of her husband in addition to payment of a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- towards her share. The Plaintiff’s claim is that after getting the suit land, she with her husband have spent a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- and developed the suit land in the year 2005 by putting up a market complex wherein the shop rooms are being rented out to different tenants. The dispute started when the Defendant No.1 wanted to bring one widow as his caretaker-cum-second wife, during the lifetime of the first wife and he wanted to transfer all the property to that stranger widow. The Plaintiff when opposed to that, the Defendant No.1 forcibly disposed the Plaintiff from the shop rooms with the help of local goondas which compelled the Plaintiff to file the suit for partition.

4. The Defendant No.1 in his written statement claims to have got the suit land in his share in a partition suit i.e. C.s. No.25 of 1995; wherein the final decree has been passed. He, therefore, claims the suit property to be his separate and exclusive property over which, he denies any sort of claim of the Plaintiff. The Defendant No.2 claims to have developed the suit land at his own cost and constructed the shop rooms and earning by renting out those by inducting different persons as tenants therein. The Defendant No.1 was an employee of NALCO and after retirement that is the only source of income for him. It is stated that the Defendant No.1 while in service had entrusted the house of the Plaintiff to looking after the shop rooms and collected rents; but he committed breach of trust. The Defendant No.1 has made certain other allegations as to how and in which ways he was being