IMPORTANT POINT
A judgment in rem like judgments passed in probate, insolvency, matrimonial or guardianship or other similar proceedings admissible in all cases, whether such judgments inter parties or not.

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.3.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 267 of 1988 partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 17.8.1988 and 31.8.1988 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak in Title Suit No. 131 of 1978-1 in a suit for partition.

2. From the undisputed genealogy, it appears that one Champati Das had three sons, Namely, Kalandi, Mali and Padan, Kalandi had two sons, namely. Bholanath and Binod, Jema wife of Bholanath died in the year 1962, Rambha was the daughter of Bholanath. Defendant No. 2 was the son of Mali. He expired during pendency of the suit, whereafter his legal representatives have been impleaded as defendants 24 to 29. Padan had two sons, late Panchu and Gangadhar (defendant No.5). Defendant No.4 is the widow of Panchu and defendant No.3 is the son. From the evidence on record, it appears that Bholanath had two Sisters, namely, Ajodhya and Hara. Defendants 6 and 23 are the sons of Ajodhya. Both of them claim In their separate written statement that defendant No. 23 is the adopted son of Binod, Ajodhya had two other sons, who were not impleaded as parties in the Trial Court. An application for impleading them as parties has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 during pendency of first appeal. Similarly, Hara had three sons, who had not been impleaded as parties, but they have filed applications to be added as parties. Defendants 7 to 9, who are the sons of defendant No. 23, are alienees from Binod in respect of certain properties. Defendant No. 16 has been jointly recorded with Bholanath in respect of ‘Gha’ schedule property. The other defendants are the alienees from other parties. Plaintiff claims that she and defendant No.1 are the daughters of Rambha and they are entitled to succeed to the properties of Bholanath, who admittedly died in the year 1972.

3. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff laid a suit for partition in respect of “Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, and Una” of the suit schedule properties in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak, which was registered as T.S. No.131 of 1978-1. The case of the plaintiff is that Bholanath, Binod, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar became separated in the year 1942. ‘Ka’ schedule lands have been recorded in the names of Bholanath, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar. Binod had no interest in the said property. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are entitled to 1/3rd interest of ‘Ka’ schedule property. ‘Kha’ schedule properties have been recorded in the names of Bholanath, Binod, Maguni, Panchu and Gangadhar. The three branches had equal share in the properties and as such, plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to a share of 1/12 in such property. ‘Ga’ schedule property is the exclusive property of Bholanath and Binod and the other two branches did not have any interest in the same. Thus, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled to 1/4th share each in ‘Ga’ schedule property. ‘Gha’ schedule properties have been recorded in the names of Bholanath and Sashika (defendant No.16). The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are entitled to half share in the said property. Lot No.1 of schedule ‘Una’ property was purchased by Jena in 1945 out of her own funds and as such plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are entitled to succeed to such property to the exclusion of others. Lot Nos. 2 to 7 of ‘Una’ schedule property are the self acquired property of Bholanath and the plaintiff and defendant No.1 claim the entire property. The alienations of Binod in favour of defendants 7 to 9 have been challenged.

4. Defendant No.2 expired during pendency of the suit and his heirs, defendants 24 to 29 made an application for impletion in the suit and the same was allowed. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and 24 to 29 filed a joint written statement. They do not deny the status of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. They claimed that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are not entitled to any shar