Allowed

Bharata Moharana v. Indumati Moharana

Orissa HC25 Sept 2024RSA/233/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal under Order XXI of CPC regarding inheritance and partition, the Orissa High Court held that unchallenged Consolidation Records of Right determine title. The Court found the defendant was the adopted son of the father. Based on how properties were recorded, legal heirs of the defendant get half shares in some lots while the plaintiff/ex-partners get half in others, excluding t

What did the court decide?

Decreed preliminary partition of properties under Consolidation Khata Nos. 105 and 81; granted half shares to respective legal heirs of plaintiff and defendant based on R.o.R entries.

Bharata Moharana Vs Indumati Moharana — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

¶2

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶3

In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 C.P.C, 1908.

¶4

¶5

Bharat Moharana (dead) & Others … Appellants.

¶6

-VERSUS-

¶7

Indumati Moharana & Others … Respondents.

¶8

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶9

For the Appellants : Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondents : Mr. N.P. Parija, Advocate

¶11

(for the LRs of the respondent No.1). Mr. M. Mohanty, Advocate. (for the respondent Nos.1(b)(1), 1(b)(2), 1(c) & 1(d)).

¶12

P R E S E N T:

¶13

HONOURABLE

¶14

MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA

¶15

Dates of Hearing : 23.08.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 25.09.2024

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.—

¶18

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

¶19

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶20

Page 1 of 20

¶21

2. The predecessor of the appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(e), 2(a) to 2(d) and 3

¶22

to 4 i.e. Bharat Moharana, Bankim Moharana, Khetrabasi Moharana & Sribatsa Moharana were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 and respondents before the First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.77 of 1990.

¶23

The predecessor of the respondents i.e. Bikala Moharana was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 and appellant before the First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.77 of 1990.

¶24

When during the pendency of the 1^st Appeal, the said appellant (plaintiff) expired, then, his LRs were substituted in his place.

¶25

3. The suit of the plaintiff (Bikala Moharana) against the defendants i.e. against Bharat Moharana, Bankim Moharana, Khetrabasi Moharana & Sribasta Moharana was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

¶26

As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, his common ancestor was Dasa Moharana. Dasa Moharana died leaving behind his 4 sons i.e. Bhaiga, Darsan, Chhakadi & Brundaban.

¶27

Bhaiga died leaving behind his 4 sons i.e. Rama, Sindhu, Shyam & Laxmidhar. Rama died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Hari & Bikal. Hari died issueless. Bikala is the plaintiff in the suit.

¶28

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶29

Page 2 of 20

¶30

Sindhu, Laxmidhar and Shyam died issueless.

¶31

Darsan died leaving behind his 4 children i.e. Mandari, Chama, Musei & Madhu. Mandari, Chama, Musei & Madhu died issueless. Chhakadi died issueless.

¶32

Brundaban died leaving behind his 3 sons i.e. Dadhi, Jadu and Bandhu. Khati is the wife of Jadu. Dadhi, and Bandhu died issueless.

¶33

The aforesaid genealogy of the plaintiff is described in Schedule “A”

¶34

of the plaint and the same is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:

¶35

Schedule “A”
( GENEOLOGY )
Dasa Moharana
Bhaiga Darsan Chhakadi Brundaban
(dead) (dead) (dead) (dead)
Rama Sindhu Shyam Laxmidhar
(dead) (dead) (dead) (dead)
Dadhi Jadu Bandhu
Hari Bikal (dead) (dead)
(dead) (Plaintiff) =Khati
(wife)
Mandari Chama Musei Madhu
(dead) (dead) (dead)

¶36

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶37

Page 3 of 20

¶38

According to the plaintiff (Bikal), he (plaintiff) alone is entitled to

¶39

inherit the suit properties left by his common ancestor Dasa Moharana. The properties described in Schedule “B” are the suit properties. Though, the plaintiff has no dispute with the defendant Nos.2 to 4, but, they (defendant Nos.2 to 4) have been arrayed as parties in the suit, as their names have been jointly recorded in respect of Lot No.2 of Schedule “B” suit properties under Khata No.81. The defendant No.1 i.e. Bharat Moharana is a stranger to his family. He (defendant No.1) is not the son of Jadu and Khati. He (defendant No.1 Bharat Moharana) has never been adopted by Jadu & Khati at any point of time. He defendant No.1 is a Goonda, powerful, rich and litigant person and he always used to take law to his own hands. He (defendant No.1) has no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit properties.

¶40

He (plaintiff) is a poor simple and lame person. So, taking the advantage of his poverty, simplicity and deformity, the defendant No.1 illegally claimed himself as the adopted son of Jadu & Khati before the Consolidation Authorities.

¶41

In spite of rejection of the claimed status of the defendant No.1 as the adopted son of Jadu & Khati, he (defendant No.1) has managed to record his name illegally in respect of the suit properties as the son of Jadu & Khati without the knowledge of Khati. The Consolidation Authorities had no

¶42

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶43

Page 4 of 20

¶44

power and jurisdiction to decide the status of the defendant No.1 as the adopted son of Jadu and Khati. For which, the recording of the name of defendant No.1 as the son of Jadu and Khati in the Consolidation R.o.R of the suit properties is illegal. The defendant No.1 has managed to record his name in the Consolidation R.o.R of the suit properties as the son of Jadu & Khati by practising fraud and influencing the officers of the Consolidation Authorities. When, after the death of Khati Moharana, on the strength of the illegal recording of the name of the defendant No.1 in the Consolidation R.o.R of the suit properties as the son of Jadu & Khati, the defendant No.1 created disturbance in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties on dated 10.12.1985 and 25.01.1986 respectively, for which, he (plaintiff) approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 against the defendants praying for declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint against the defendant No.1 and to confirm his possession thereon, in alternative to direct the defendant No.1 deliver the possession of the same to him (plaintiff), if he is found to be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and to restrain the defendant No.1 permanently from coming over the suit properties along with other relief, to which, he (plaintiff) is entitled for.

¶45

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶46

Page 5 of 20

¶47

4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vie T.S. No.72 of 1986, the defendant No.1 filed his written statement independently, whereas, the defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed their written statement jointly.

¶48

As per the written Statement of the defendant Nos.2 to 4, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable against them. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. There was no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit against them (defendant Nos.2 to 4). The genealogy described by the plaintiff in Schedule “A” of the plaint is not correct. According to them (defendant Nos.2 to 4), the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Jadu and Khati and he (defendant No.1) is in possession over the suit properties being the successor of Jadu and Khati. They (defendant Nos.2 to 4) are the villagers of the adjacent village of the defendant No.1 and they are the owners of the properties described in Lot No.2 of Schedule “B”. For which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against them (defendant Nos.2 to 4).

¶49

The defendant No.1 also challenged the suit of the plaintiff by filing his written statement denying the allegations alleged by the plaintiff against him, stating that, he (defendant No.1) is the adopted son of Jadu & Khati and he is the owner and in possession over the suit properties. He has raised paddy crops over the suit properties in this year like the previous years. So, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title, interest and possession

¶50

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶51

Page 6 of 20

¶52

over the suit properties. For which, the question of disturbing and threatening to dispossess the plaintiff by him (defendant No.1) from the suit properties does not arise. Because, the plaintiff has no interest in the suit properties. The plaintiff does not belong to the family of Das Moharana, but, he is a stranger. The genealogy given by the plaintiff is not correct. He (defendant No.1) is the adopted son of Jadu Moharana and Khati Moharana as well as the sole successor of Das Moharana. Jadu and Khati have adopted him (defendant No.1) since his childhood observing giving and taking ceremony and fulfilling all necessary requirements as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Since the date of adoption, he (defendant No.1) has been residing in the family of Jadu & Khati as their son and he is the sole successor of Jadu & Khati. His adoptive father has executed a deed of adoption on dated 01.02.1976 acknowledging him as his adopted son in order to avoid any complexity in future. His adoption has not been challenged by anybody including the plaintiff earlier. As, he (defendant No.1) is the sole successor of Jadu & Khati as well as the sole successor of Dasa Moharana, for which, he (defendant No.1) is the owner of the entire suit properties, in which, the plaintiff has no interest. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed against him with cost.

¶53

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶54

Page 7 of 20

¶55

5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies

¶56

between the parties, altogether 12 numbers of issues were framed by the

¶57

Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 and the said issues are:

¶58

ISSUES

¶59

1. Is the suit as laid maintainable in law?

¶60

2. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?

¶61

3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action to file the suit?

¶62

4. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

¶63

5. Whether the genealogy given in the plaint is correct?

¶64

6. Whether the plaintiff is related to the family of Jadu?

¶65

7. Whether the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Jadu?

¶66

8. Whether the plaintiff has any right, title, interest over the suit land?

¶67

9. Who is in possession of the suit land?

¶68

10. Whether the defendant No.1 has acquired right, title and interest by way of adverse possession?

¶69

11. Whether the suit is under-valued?

¶70

12. What other reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?

¶71

6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant No.1, he (plaintiff) examined 3 witnesses from his side including him as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 7/a.

¶72

On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 examined 4 witnesses on his behalf including him (defendant No.1) as D.W.3 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.A to P/4.

¶73

7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court dismissed the

¶74

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶75

Page 8 of 20

¶76

suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 on contest against the defendant

¶77

No.1 and ex parte against other defendants, but without cost as per its Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.1990 and 20.08.1990 respectively assigning the reasons that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, because, the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Jadu & Khati and he (defendant No.1) is in possession over the suit properties, but, the plaintiff has not been able to establish that, he is related to the family of Jadu and Khati.

¶78

8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 passed by the Trial Court, he (plaintiff) challenged the same by preferring the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.77 of 1990 being the appellant against the defendants arraying them (defendants) as respondents.

¶79

When, during the pendency of the 1^st Appeal, the appellant (plaintiff) Bikal Moharana expired, then, in his place, his LRs were substituted as appellants.

¶80

After hearing from both the sides, the First Appellate Court allowed that 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.77 of 1990 in part on contest and set aside the Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff passed by the Trial Court as per its Judgment and Decree dated 06.08.2002 and

¶81

23.08.2002 respectively entitling the LRs of the plaintiff i.e. appellants ½

¶82

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶83

Page 9 of 20

¶84

share jointly and entitling the defendant No.1 ½ share in the suit properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint assigning the reasons that, the genealogy given by the plaintiff is correct. The findings and observations made by the Trial Court holding that, the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Jadu & Khati is also correct. For which, the plaintiff is the sole successor of the branch of Bhaiga Moharana, for which as per law, his LRs are jointly entitled for half share in the suit properties and defendant No.1 alone is entitled for half share in the suit properties.

¶85

9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.77 of 1990 entitling the plaintiff to get half share and defendant No.1 to get half share from the suit properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint, all the defendants challenged the same by preferring this 2^nd Appeal being the appellants against the successors of the plaintiff arraying them as respondents.

¶86

When during the pendency of this 2^nd Appeal, the appellant Nos.1 & 2 (defendant Nos.1 & 2) expired, then, their LRs have been substituted in their places as appellants.

¶87

10. This 2^nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e.

¶88

I. Whether the alleged sale deed dated 09.04.1936, said to have been executed by Jadu, can be taken into evidence in spite of

¶89

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶90

Page 10 of 20

¶91

the fact that neither the same was exhibited nor the same was confronted to the defendant?

¶92

II. Whether the record of right prepared consequent upon deciding the right, title of the parties by the consolidation authority can be subject matter of challenge in a civil suit?

¶93

11 . I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

¶94

12. As, both the substantial questions of law are interlinked having ample

¶95

nexus with each other, according to the Judgments and Decrees passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court basing upon the pleadings and evidence of the parties, then, both the substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder:

¶96

As per plaint, the Schedule “B” properties are under Consolidation Khata Nos.105, 80, 79, 65, 98, 66, 104 and 81.

¶97

During the trial, none of the parties to the suit filed or proved any document in respect of consolidation Khata Nos.65,98 and 66. For which, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have not taken the properties under Consolidation Khata No.65,98 & 66 into account as the suit properties. Therefore, the properties under consolidation Khata No.65,98 & 66 described in Schedule “B” have been excluded from the zone of consideration in the suit.

¶98

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶99

Page 11 of 20

¶100

So, the rest properties covered under Consolidation Khata

¶101

No.105,80,79, 104 & 81 are the real disputed properties in the suit between the parties. For which, the Judgments and the Decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court have been passed only in respect of the properties covered under Consolidation Khata Nos.105, 80, 79, 104 & 81.

¶102

The R.o.R. of Consolidation Khata No.105 has been marked as Ext.7. R.o.R of Consolidation Khata No.80 has been marked as Exts.7/b. The R.o.R. of Consolidation Khata No.79 has been marked as Ext.7/a. The R.o.R of Consolidation Khata No.104 has been marked as Ext.P/2 and the R.o.R. of Consolidation Khata No.81 has been marked as Ext.A.

¶103

It is the undisputed case of the parties that, after publication of the Consolidation Khata Nos.105, 80, 79, 104 and 81 in the year 1985, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in the year 1986 praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over the properties covered under the above five consolidation Khatas vide Khata Nos.105, 80, 79, 104 & 81 and to confirm his possession thereon and to restrain the defendant No.1 permanently from coming over the said suit properties, in alternative for recovery of possession, if, he (plaintiff) is found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit.

¶104

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶105

Page 12 of 20

¶106

13. It appears from the Consolidation Khata No.105 (Ext.7) that, the Consolidation R.o.R has been published in the name of Khati Moharana and the plaintiff jointly.

¶107

The Consolidation suit Khata No.80 (Ext.7/b) has been published in the name of Khati Moharana and the defendant No.1 indicating that, Khati Moharana is the wife of Jadu Moharana and the defendant No.1 (Bharat Moharana) is the son of Jadu Moharana.

¶108

The Consolidation R.o.R of suit Khata No.79 (Ext.7/a) has been published in the name of Khati Moharana wife of Jadu Moharana.

¶109

The Consolidation R.o.R. of suit Khata No.104 (Ext.P/2) has been published in the name of Khati Moaharana wife of Jadu Moharana.

¶110

The Consolidation R.o.R of suit Khata No.81 (Ext.A) has been published in the name of Khati Moharana wife of Jadu Moharana along with defendant Nos.2 to 4 (Bankim Moharana, Khetrabasi Moharana & Sribasta Moharana).

¶111

After publication of the Consolidation R.o.R of the suit Khata No.80 (Ext.7/b) indicating the name of the defendant No.1 as the son of Jadu Moharana & Khati Moharana, without challenging the said Consolidation R.o.R before the higher forums of the Consolidation Authorities, he (plaintiff) has approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.72

¶112

of 1986 praying for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession

¶113

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶114

Page 13 of 20

¶115

over the suit properties for setting aside the recordings of the name of defendant No.1 in the Consolidation R.o.R vide suit Khata No.80 (Ext.7/b) indirectly.

¶116

The law concerning the powers and jurisdiction of the Civil Court for setting aside the Consolidation R.o.Rs has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:

¶117

i. 2003 (2) OLR (Page 16):Mohan Biswal Vs. Sri Gopinath Dev & 6 Others.

¶118

Value of Consolidation R.o.R—When Record of Right prepared by the Consolidation Authority is not under challenge before any competent authority, the R.o.R prepared by the Consolidation Authorities has to be respected until it is found to be illegal or incorrect.

¶119

ii. 63 (1987) C.L.T. 347:Brajakishore Panda & Others Vs. Damodar Rout & Another.

¶120

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 9—The Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to sit in Judgment over the decisions of the Consolidation authorities and declare those as without jurisdiction which is available to the varied by the higher forums provided under the Consolidation Act.

¶121

iii. 2007 (Supp.I) OLR 276:Balaram Bhoi Vs. Babajee Bhoi & Others.

¶122

Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972—R.o.R published by the Consolidation Authorities cannot be varied or set aside by the Civil Court. (Para No.9)

¶123

iv. 2018 (2) CLR 951:Harekrushna Dash Vs. Sadasiva Dash.

¶124

Consolidation R.o.R.—Evidentiary value—In deciding right, title and interest in the properties, the power also remains with the consolidation authority to adjudicate the right, title and interest of the parties over the properties.

¶125

In view of the aforesaid settled position, heavy weight gets attached to the reflection of the father’s name in the R.o.R

¶126

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶127

Page 14 of 20

¶128

finally published in the consolidation operation, which has not been challenged in its higher forum.

¶129

v. 2019 (I) CLR 1115: Baishnaba Mohanty Vs. Malati Mohanty & ANother — Orissa Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation of Land) Act, 1972—Adoption— The Consolidation Authority assumes jurisdiction to decide the question of status i.e. adoption, if such question arises ancillary or incidentally for adjudication of right, title and interest in the property. (Para Nos.10 & 11)

¶130

14. Here in this suit at hand, when the recordings of the finally published Consolidation R.o.Rs. of the suit properties vide Consolidation Khata Nos.105, 80, 79, 104, 81 vide Exts. ‘ 7’, ‘7/b’, ‘7/a’, ‘P/2’ and ‘A’ have not been questioned/challenged by the plaintiff before any competent higher forums or authorities of consolidation, then, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is held that, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to give any finding contrary to the recordings made in the Consolidation authorities in the Consolidation R.o.Rs vide Exts. 7, 7/B, 7/A, P/2 and A. The recordings of the names of the parties in the Consolidation R.o.Rs vide Exts. ‘ 7’, ‘7/b’, ‘7/a’, ‘P/2’ and ‘A’ itself prove their status, title and possession.

¶131

As the recordings of the unchallenged Consolidation R.o.R vide Ext.7/b under Consolidation Khata No.80 reveal that, the defendant No.1 (Bharat Moharana) is the son of Jadu Moharana and Khati Moharana, then, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Courts, it is held that, the findings and observations

¶132

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶133

Page 15 of 20

¶134

given by the Trial Court & First Appellate Court that, the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Jadu Moharana and Khati Moharana are not unreasonable or incorrect. Therefore, accepting the findings and observations made by the Trial Court & First Appellate Court, it is held that, the defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Jadu Moharana & Khati Moharana.

¶135

When, it is forthcoming from the unchallenged recordings of the Consolidation R.o.R. vide Consolidation Khata No.105 (Ext.7), that, the properties covered under the said Consolidation Khata No.105 (Ext.7) in Schedule “B” have been jointly recorded in the name of the plaintiff and Khati Moharana, then, the defendant No.1 being the sole successor of Khati Moharana, he (defendant No.1) is entitled for half share and the plaintiff is entitled for half share from the same.

¶136

Likewise on the basis of the recordings of the unchallenged consolidation R.o.Rs of suit Khata Nos.80,79,104, the defendant No.1 is the exclusive owner of the properties covered under the said suit Khata Nos.80,79 & 104 as the adopted son of Jadu Moharana and Khati Moharana as well as their sole successor. Because, the suit consolidation Khata No.80 has been recorded in the name of Khati Moharana and defendant No.1 jointly and the suit consolidation khata Nos.79 and 104 have been recorded in the name of Khati Moharana exclusively. So, the plaintiff and defendant

¶137

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶138

Page 16 of 20

¶139

Nos.2 & 4 have no interest in the properties covered under suit Khata Nos.80, 79 & 104.

¶140

As the Consolidation Khata No.81 in Lot No.2 of Schedule “B” vide Ext.A has been published jointly in the name of the adoptive mother of the defendant No.1 i.e. Khati Moharana along with defendant No.2 to 4, for which, in the said suit Khata No.81, the defendant No.1 as the sole successor of Khati Moharana has half share and the defendant Nos.2 to 4 jointly have half share, in which, the plaintiff has no interest.

¶141

15. As per the discussions and observations made above, the findings and observations made by the First Appellate Court for partition of the entire suit properties between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as half and half cannot be sustainable under law. Because, the plaintiff has been entitled to get half share only in respect of the suit properties covered under suit Consolidation Khata No.105, but, he (plaintiff) has no interest in the properties covered under suit consolidation Khata Nos.80,79,104 & 81.

¶142

Therefore, the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court cannot be sustainable in full, because, the same is interferable to some extent through this 2^nd Appeal preferred by the defendants as per the discussions and observations made above. For which, there is some merit in the appeal of the appellants (defendants). The same must succeed in part.

¶143

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶144

Page 17 of 20

¶145

16. In result, the 2^nd Appeal filed by the appellants (defendants) is

¶146

allowed in part on contest against the respondents (successors of the plaintiff), but without cost.

¶147

17. Out of the properties covered under suit Consolidation Khata No.105

¶148

Ext.7 described in Lot No.1 of Schedule “B”, the plaintiff i.e. Bikal Moharana is entitled for half share and the defendant No.1 Bharat Moharana is entitled for half share.

¶149

As, the plaintiff has expired in the meanwhile, the respondents in this 2^nd Appeal being the successors of the plaintiff, they are entitled to get the said half share of the plaintiff jointly in the properties covered under suit Consolidation Khata No.105 (Ext.7).

¶150

Likewise, as the defendant No.1 has also expired in the meanwhile, the appellant Nos.1(b) to 1(e) of this 2^nd Appeal being his successors, they are entitled to get the said half share of the defendant No.1 jointly in the properties covered under suit Consolidation Khata No.105 (Ext.7).

¶151

18. In the properties covered under suit Consolidation Khata No.80,79,104 in Lot No.1 of Schedule “B”, the defendant No.1 Bharat Moharana was the exclusive owner, after him, the legal heirs of defendant

¶152

No.1 (appellant Nos.1(b) to 1(e) have become the joint owners), in which, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Nos.2 to 4 has any interest.

¶153

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶154

Page 18 of 20

¶155

Out of the properties covered under suit Consolidation Khata No.81

¶156

(Ext.A) described in Lot No.2 of Schedule “B”, the legal heirs of the defendant No.1 (appellant Nos.1(b) to 1(e)) are jointly entitled for half share and the defendant No.2 to 4 are jointly entitled for half share.

¶157

Though, the suit properties covered under Khata No.105 & 81 have been prepared by the Consolidation Authorities, still then, as per Section 36A of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land (Amendment) Act, 2023, the said jointly recorded properties in Consolidation Khata No.105 and 81 have become partible under law, for which, there is no impediment under law for partition of the same.

¶158

19. The suit be and the same vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 filed by the plaintiff is decreed preliminarily for partition on contest against the defendants only in respect of the properties covered under suit Khata No.105 (Ext.7).

¶159

Out of the suit properties covered under suit consolidation Khata No.105 (Ext.7), all the Legal Heirs of the plaintiff (respondents in the 2^nd Appeal) are jointly entitled for half share and the legal heirs of the defendant No.1 (appellant Nos.1(b) to 1(e)) are jointly entitled for half share.

¶160

Out of the properties described in suit Consolidation Khata No.81 (Ext.A), the legal heirs of defendant No.1 (appellant Nos.1(b) to 1(e)) are

¶161

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶162

Page 19 of 20

¶163

jointly entitled for half share and the defendant Nos.2 to 4 are jointly entitled for half share.

¶164

The parties i.e. the plaintiff and defendants may amicably effect the partition of the properties covered under two suit Khatas only vide Consolidation Khata Nos.105 & 81 in proportion to their respective shares as indicated above in Khata wise within a period of 3 moths, failing which, any one of the parties among the plaintiff and defendants may apply the Trial Court for making the decree final.

¶165

In the final decree proceeding, the Civil Court Commissioner to be appointed by the Court shall make division of the suit properties covered under said two Consolidation Khatas vide Khata Nos.105 & 81 amongst the plaintiffs and defendants by allotting their respective shares in their favour in accordance with the apportionments made above in Khata wise and while so partitioning, he shall respect to the possession and convenience of the parties subject to the adjustment of their respective sells if any from their respective shares.

¶166

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶167

Signature Not Verified High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 25.09,2024// Rati Ranjan Nayak Digitally Signed Sr. Stenographer Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cutt ack , India Date: 30-Sep-2024 16:01:33

¶168

R.S.A. No.233 of 2002

¶169

Page 20 of 20

Bharata Moharana v. Indumati Moharana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharata Moharana v. Indumati Moharana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pyari Vs B.D.A.

Sobha Gouda Vs a.Santosh K.Patra

Sastami Bhoi Vs O.I.Co.Ltd

U.I.I.Co.Ltd Vs Tofani Parida

Shiba Pr.Barik Vs Satyabrata Barik

Uchhab Bhoi Vs Babaji Ojha