A partition suit is legally maintainable between joint owners who are strangers to each other. Since partition merely declares existing interests in a specific form rather than creating new title, the right to seek judicial partition remains a continuous cause of action available to joint owners regardless of their interpersonal relationship.

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

2. The appellant in this 2nd appeal was the defendant before the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.1177 of 2011 and appellant before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.08 of 2016.

The respondent in this 2nd appeal was the plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.1177 of 2011 and respondent before the learned 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide RFA No.08 of 2016.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2nd appeal) vide C.S. No.1177 of 2011 against the defendant(appellant in this 2nd appeal) was a suit for partition.

4. As per the case of the plaintiff, she(plaintiff) and defendant both are the Hindus and they are guided and governed by Mitakshyara School of Hindu Law.

The properties described in the schedule of the plaint are the suit properties for partition. The suit properties are the homestead properties. She(plaintiff) and defendant are the joint owners of the suit properties and the suit properties have been recorded in the Hal Settlement jointly in their names. As such, she(plaintiff) and defendant both have equal share in the suit properties.

As per the Sabik RoR of the year 1962, Plot No.1067 A.0.108 decimals under Sabik Khata No.120 in Mouza-Nayapalli originally belonged to the Sabik recorded tenants, i.e., Damodar Moharana, Basudev Moharana and Mahadev Moharana all are sons of Hrushi Moharana of village-Jambeswar Patna, Old Town, Bhubaneswar.

After death of Damodar Moharana, his son and successor, i.e., Harihar Moharana sold A.0.0490 decimals out of A0.108 decimals from Sabik Plot No.1067 to one Anarasi Surama Patra wife of A. Laxman Patra of village Takabali in the district of Phulbani in the year 1978 through RSD No.6756 dated 11.09.1978. While Ansari Surama Patra was possessing her aforesaid purchased properties, she sold the same to the plaintiff through RSD No.2980 dated 26.07.1983(Ext.3) and delivered possession thereof and plaintiff possessed the same and planted coconut trees on the same.

5. The successors of Basudev Moharana and Mahadev Moharana, i.e., Bhabani and Purna Moharana sold rest land of Sabik Plot No.1067 to one Swagat Mohanty son of Bijay Kumar Mohanty of village-Malagrama of Puri District through RSD No.7176 dated 02.09.1985(Ext.4). The suit properties corresponds to Sabik Plot No.1067 under Sabik Khata No.120.

6. During last settlement operation, the draft RoR vide Ext.5 of the suit properties under Khata No.956 was jointly prepared in the name of the plaintiff and Swagat Kumar Mohanty.

When, Swagat Kumar Mohanty sold his purchased land to the defendant, through RSD No.10653 dated 29.10.2004, then, she(plaintiff) filed an appeal vide Appeal Case No.2055 of 2006 under Section 22 (2) of the OSS Act, 1958 before the Settlement Officer impleading the defendant as respondent for separate recording of the suit properties in their names on the basis of their aforesaid purchase through separate sale deeds, but the said appeal was dismissed. Then, the final Hal RoR of the suit properties vide Ext.8 was published jointly in the name of the plaintiff and defendant. For which, she(plaintiff) requested the defendant for partition of the suit properties, to which, the defendant avoided and tried to block the entry point in order to prevent the entry of the plaintiff into the suit properties. Therefore, without getting any way, she(plaintiff) approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide C.S. No.1177 of 2011 against the defendant praying for partition of her half share from the suit properties along with other reliefs, to which, she(plaintiff) is entitled for.

7. Having been noticed from the learned trial court in the suit vide C.S. No.1177 of 2011, the defendant challenged the suit of the plaintiff by filing his written statement taking his stands therein that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of the parties. Th