Joint ownership claims persist until partition; rights in a partition suit are not bound by limitation, and the burden to prove legal necessity for property transfer lies with the transferee.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The Appellants in this Second Appeal were the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 8 and Defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.1107 of 2009 and Respondents before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide R.F.A. No.26 of 2011.

The Respondents in this 2nd Appeal were the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.1107 of 2009 and Appellants before the learned 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st appeal vide R.F.A. No.26 of 2011.

3. The suit of the Plaintiffs (Appellants Nos.1 to 8 in this 2^nd Appeal) vide C.S. No.1107 of 2009 was a suit for partition.

4. The properties described in the Schedule-A of the plaint i.e. Plot No.177-Ac.0.985 decimals and Plot No.178-Ac.0.285 decimals, in total Ac.1.270 decimals under Khata No.246/8 in Mouza Binjhagiri under Chandaka P.S. in the District of Khurda are the suit properties for partition.

5. According to the Plaintiffs (Appellant Nos.1 to 8 in this 2^nd appeal), they are Hindus and they are guided and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.

The genealogy of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 is depicted hereunder for an instant reference.

As per the aforesaid genealogy, The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the successors of Bilash Kumari Mohanty.

6. The suit properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint were the properties of Bilash Kumari Mohanty, wife of Gangadhar Mohanty. Bilash Kumari Mohanty had purchased the suit properties from one Chandra Sekhar Mohanty prior to the year 1965 from her stridhan properties. After purchase, she (Bilash Kumari Mohanty) mutated the Schedule-A suit properties to her name as per the order passed in Mutation Case No.1972 of 1965-66. As such, Bilash Kumari Mohanty was the exclusive owner and in possession over the suit properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint.

Bilash Kumari Mohanty died in the year 1978 leaving behind her husband Gangadhar Mohanty, two sons i.e. Rabinarayan Mohanty and Satyanarayan Mohanty (Defendant No.1) and five daughters i.e. Pratibha, Indumati, Sashirekha (Plaintiff No.6), Biduulata (Plaintiff No.7) and Bishnupriya (Plaintiff No.8).

The 1^st daughter of Bilash Kumari Moyanty i.e. Pratibha Mohanty died leaving behind plaintiff no.5 as her successor. The 2^nd daughter of Bilash Kumari Mohanty i.e. Indumati Mohanty died, while she was unmarried.

The first son of Bilash Kumari Mohanty i.e. Rabinarayan Mohanty died leaving behind the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 as his successors.

After the death of Bilash Kumari Mohanty, the suit properties left by her devolved simultaneously upon her husband Gangadhar Mohanty along with Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1.

By the time of death of Bilash Kumari Mohanty in the year 1978, her husband Gangadhar Mohanty was extremely old and he was incapable of looking after the management and cultivation of their properties including the Schedule-A suit properties. The eldest son of Gangadhar Mohanty i.e. Rabinarayan Mohanty was not physically and mentally fit either to cultivate or to look after the management of their properties including the Schedule-A suit properties. The father-in-law’s house of Gangadhar Mohanty is at village Chhatabar, which is the native village of Kunjabehari Sahu (Defendant No.3). The father of the Defendant No.3 had intimacy with Gangadhar Mohanty. For which, Gangadhar Mohanty entrusted the management and cultivation of Schedule-A suit properties to the father of the Defendant No.3. Gangadhar Mohanty died in the year 2006, for whic