RFA No. 158 of 2004. Case: Pramila Pradhan Vs Sumanta Sekhar Pradhan and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | RFA No. 158 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.R. Mohapatra,Adv.and For Respondents: S.P. Raju,Adv. |
| Judges | B.K. Nayak, J. |
| Issue | Hindu Succession (amendment) Act, 2005 - Sections 3, 6, 6(1), 6(3); Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 |
| Citation | 2015 (119) CLT 669, 2014 (II) ILR 989, 2015 (I) OLR 270 |
| Judgement Date | September 02, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
B.K. Nayak, J.
-
This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and part decree respectively dated 27.04.2004 and 12.05.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar in Title Suit No. 9 of 2001. The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for partition of the suit properties and allotment of her legitimate share therein. Her case is that part of the suit properties stands recorded in the name of her mother, Sita Pradhan, which were her streedhan properties and the rest are the ancestral properties of her father, Prahalad. Prahalad and Sita had three daughters, namely, Chandrakala, Ahalya and Pramila (plaintiff) and had no male issue. Chandrakala is dead and defendant Nos. 3 and 2 respectively are her husband and daughter. Ahalya-defendant No. 4 died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind defendant Nos. 4 (a) to 4(e), defendant No. 7 and defendant No. 1 as her sons and daughters. Defendant Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9 are purchasers of some of the suit properties. It is averred by the plaintiff that during 1971, Prahalada executed an adoption deed in favour of defendant No. 1 without the consent of his wife, Sita Pradhan. No adoption ceremony as required under Hindu Law was performed. Sita died in the year 1983 and Prahalad died in the year 1992. It is specifically alleged that defendant No. 1 is not the adopted son of Prahalad Pradhan and Sita Pradhan, but he has sold away some lands out of the suit properties to defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 9 without the consent of the plaintiff and other LRs of Prahalad and Sita and, therefore, those sale deeds are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and other LRs of Prahalad. Defendant No. 7 has also managed to record her name in respect of some part of the suit properties behind the back of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, sought for the relief of partition and allotment of legitimate share therein.
-
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff and denying the adoption of defendant No. 1 by Prahalad stating further that they had no objection for partition of the suit properties and allotment of 1/3rd share to them jointly.
-
Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 to 7 filed a joint statement stating that defendant No. 1 was the adopted son of Prahalad Pradhan and Sita Pradhan. He is the natural son of Ahalya Pradhan, who was the second daughter of Prahalada Pradhan and Sit Pradhan. The adoption took place on the Sripanchamee day of the year 1965 in presence of friends and relation when defendant No. 1 was only four years old. Giving and taking ceremony as well as other functions and feast were performed on the date of the adoption. Since the date of his adoption, defendant No. 1 has been treated as the son of Prahalad and Sita and is recognized as such by the plaintiff and all others. Defendant No. 1 was given education by his adoptive parents and that Prahalad has been described as the father of defendant No. 1 in the records of educational Institutions. Subsequently, in the year 1971 Prahalad executed a registered deed acknowledging previous adoption of defendant No. 1 and all his daughters including the plaintiff have signed on the said deed. Prahalad during his lifetime was managing the entire suit properties with the assistance of defendant No. 1 and has gifted some of his properties to his three daughters through registered gift deeds and the daughters entered into possession of the gifted properties and therefore, they are not entitled to further share out of the suit properties. Defendant No. 1 is the absolute owner of the suit properties after the death of Sita and Prahalad and is in exclusive possession over the same. Sita Pradhan had no Streedhan Properties, but some properties were purchased in her name by Prahalad, out of the income derived from the properties of Prahalad, which was ancestral in nature and, therefore, the property recorded in the name of Sita Pradhan is to be treated as ancestral property of Prahalad which devolved on defendant No. 1 alone. Prahalad and Sita had donated some lands to defendant No. 7 with the knowledge of the plaintiff and her sisters and the said land now stands recorded in the name of defendant No. 7, who is the owner in possession thereof. Defendant No. 1 being the owner of the properties, had alienated some part of it and the purchasers are in possession over the same.
Though...
To continue reading
Request your trial