SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 6562

ORISSA HIGH COURT
KHAIRA – Appellant
Versus
DHANESAWR – Respondent
SA 233 / 1994



IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

Khaira Dei (Dead) and Others .... Appellants

-versus-

Dhaneswar Naik (Dead) and Others .... Respondent

Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical Mode):

For Appellants - Mr. D. P. Mohanty,

Advocate.

For Respondents - Mr. P. R. Barik,

Advocate.

{for respondent

Nos.19(a) to 19(c)}

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA

Date of Hearing :07.11.2025 :: Date of Judgment :23.12.2025

A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the

confirming judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2nd appeal were the plaintiff Nos.2, 3 & 4 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 and appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A.

No.10 of 1987.

The respondent No.19 in this 2nd appeal was the plaintiff No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 and respondent No.19 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987.

The respondent Nos.1 to 18 in this 2nd appeal were the defendant Nos.1 to 16 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 and respondent Nos.1 to 18 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.10 of 1987.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants and respondent No.19 in this 2nd appeal) before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.3/6 of 1978/1985 against the defendants (respondent Nos.1 to 18 in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for partition.

4. As per the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiffs, they (plaintiffs) and defendant Nos.1 to 14 belong to one family. The defendant Nos.15 to 17 are the purchasers of some of the suit properties.

5. In order to have a better appreciation, the genealogy of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 14 given in the plaint is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:-

Genealogy Mani Naik Late Palau Late Durjodhan Late Niranjan Late Dasa Late Bhaiga Late Raghu Late Bhima Late Lochan Late Ratana Asali P-1)

Khaira (P-2) Saila Marua (D-14)

Late Kaibalya Subana Arjuna(D9) Judhistira (D 10)

Bimbadhar (P-3) Bidyadhar (P-4)

=Late Suhag(D-8)

=Mathura (D12)

Late Dundu Bhagaban (D7)

=Banabasi (9Ka) & Upasi (9 Cha)

Hara (D11) Dukhini Dei (D13)

Saibari(9 Kha) Baikuntha (9 Ga) Basumati (9 Gha) Kamala (9 Uan)

Gopi Late Govinda Dhaneswar (D1) Late Ananda Sushila (D-6) =Gouri (D5) =Baita(D3)

Giridhari (D4) Rabi (D2)

6. According to the aforesaid genealogy, Mani Naik was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4. Mani Naik died leaving behind his three sons i.e. Palau, Durjodhan and Niranjan.

Raghu is the last male member in the branch of Palau. Raghu died leaving behind his two daughters i.e. Khaira (plaintiff No.2) and Saila.

Saila died leaving behind her two sons i.e. Bimbadhar (plaintiff No.3) and Bidydhar (plaintiff No.4)

The plaintiff No.1 is the representative of the branch of Durjodhan.

The head of the third branch i.e. Niranjan died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Lochana and Ratana.

The defendant Nos.7 to 13 are the representatives of the branch of Lochana.

The defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the representatives of the branch of Ratana.

7. As per the case of the plaintiffs, though they (plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 13) are leaving in separate mess and they are possessing their joint and undivided suit properties separately more or less amicably, but the suit properties are their joint and undivided properties, because the same has not been divided/partitioned between them through any metes and bounds partition. Only they (plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 13) are possessing different portions of the suit properties unequally for the sake of their convenience. Therefore, the suit properties are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 13. The plaintiff Nos.2, 3 & 4 being the representatives of the branch of Palau, they have 1/3rd share in the suit properties. The plaintiff No.1 being the representative of the branch of Durjodh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top