1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), RANPUR.

Present : Sri Gouri Sankar Panda, B.A., LL.M.,

Judicial Officer's Code No.- OD-0693,
Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ranpur.
Date of Judgment
Dated, this the 02nd day of April, 2024
CIVIL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2021
T.S. No. 33/2021
Dhirendra Kumar Behera, aged about 50 years,
S/o.- Late Gobinda Behera,
Of Vill.- Harachandi Sahi, P.S.- Chandpur,
Dist.- Nayagarh.
......Plaintiff.
-Versus -
1. Sweta Behera, aged about 48 years,
2. Basanta Behera, aged about 45 years,
Both are S/o.- Late Gobinda Behera,
3. Ambika Behera, aged about 70 years,
W/o.-Late Gobinda Behera,
Sl. No.1 to 3 are of vill.- Harachandi Sahi,
P.S.- Chandpur, Dist.- Nayagarh,
4. Pravasini Behera, aged about 37 years,
D/o.-Late Gobinda Behera,
At/P- W/o.-Ganesh Behera,
At-Goudakashipur, P.O./P.S.- Tamando,
Dist- Khordha.
….…Defendants.

Counsel for the Plaintiff : Sri D. K. Nanda,

Learned Counsel and his Associates.
Counsel for Defendant no.1
& Defendant no.3 : Sri Niranjan Palei,
Learned Counsel.
Counsel for Defendant no.2 : Sri B. K. Ray,
Learned Counsel and his Associates.
Defendant No.4 : Ex-parte.
 2

Date of conclusion of Argument : 28.03.2024

Date of Judgment : 02.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for Partition of 1/5th share of suit
properties.
2. The plaintiff’s suit in nutshell is that, the suit
properties situated in mouza Chandapur over khata no.
236 plot no. 1313 & 1327 having area of Ac. 0.110
decimals & Ac. 0.080 decimals respectively are the
subject matter of the suit properties. The suit properties
stand recorded in the name of Gobinda Behera as per
RoR of 1999, who happens to be the late father of
plaintiff, defendant no.1, defendant no.2, defendant
no.4 and the husband of defendant no.3. During his life
time said Gobinda Behera was the owner in possession
of the suit properties having his right, title, interest.
After his death the plaintiff and all defendants are the
owners in possession of the suit properties having their
joint interest on it being the successors in interest of late
Gobinda Behera. The suit properties are the joint
properties of the parties to this case and they are
possessing it jointly. The suit properties have not been
partitioned among the parties by metes and bounds. The
plaintiff is entitle to get 1/5th share over the suit land
and likewise the defendants are entitled to get 1/5 th
share each over the suit properties. Both the parties are
not pulling well with each other for which the
 3

defendants are taking attempt to proceed with

permanent construction over the valuable portion of the
suit land without looking to the interest of the plaintiff
as well as making inconvenience and disturbances in
the possession of plaintiff at his residence. When the
matter stood thus, on dtd. 16.10.2021 the defendants in
order to make disturbance intentionally tried to put
stone wall in front of the residential room of plaintiff,
but due to vehement protest by plaintiff they could not
succeeded in such illegal attempts. Looking to the
mischievous intention of defendants the plaintiff
requested the defendants on dtd. 18.10.2021 for
partition of suit land by metes & bounds and to allot
1/5th share over the suit land in favour of the plaintiff
but the defendant did not agree. Hence this suit.
3. On the other hand the defendant no.1 to
defendant no.3 contested this suit without filing any
W.S.
4. From the perusal of the contending pleadings of
the plaintiff, as there is no denial by defendant no.1 to
defendant no.3 due to non-filing of W.S. and since
defendant no.4 has been set ex-parte, the following
points of determination are required to be answered for
just decision of the case.
i. Whether there is any cause of action for the plaintiff
to file such a suit?
ii. Whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law?
 4

iii. Whether the suit hit by the law of limitation?

iv. Whether the suit property is partiable in nature?
v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
partition and allotment of 1/5 share in his favour from
the schedule suit properties ?
vi. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other
relief(s)?
5. In support of the pleadings, the plaintiff has
examined himself only as P.W.1. He has submitted
certified copy of Hal-RoR vide khata no. 236 marked as
Exhibit 1. Similarly he has submitted electronically
generated rent receipt marked as Exhibit 2. Both these
documents are marked without any objection from
other side. On the other hand defendant no.1 to
defendant no.3 have neither examined any witness nor
adduced any documentary evidence on their behalf.
FINDINGS:
Point No. i, ii & iii
6. These three points are taken up together for the
shake of convenience as well as to facilitate better
appreciation of fact by simultaneously avoiding
repetition. Drawing attention to the averments of the
plaintiff and documents available on record as well as
the stipulations of law as envisaged in Order VII Rule
11 of Code of Civil Procedure, it would be apt to state
that, the suit does not suffer from any infirmity since
the suit properties are situated within the jurisdiction of
 5

this Court. On perusal of Hal-RoR and rent receipt vide

Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 it is observed that, the suit
properties stand recorded in the name of deceased
Gobinda Behera, who is the father of defendant no.1,
defendant no.2, defendant no.4 and husband of
defendant no.3. The plaintiff has paid land revenue in
respect of the suit properties in support of his joint
possession. The cause of action arises in favour of
plaintiff on the dates as mentioned in the suit i.e, firstly
on dtd. 16.10.2021, when the defendants in order to
make disturbances intentionally tried to put stone wall
in front of the residential room of plaintiff and secondly
on dtd. 18.10.2021, when the plaintiff asked the
defendants for partition of 1/5th share of the suit
properties by metes & bound but they refused to it
without any reason, which warranted the plaintiff to get
the suit properties partitioned through the Court. The
suit has also been filed within the limitation period
prescribed under law. Hence it gives rise to the
maintainability and cause of action to institute this suit.
Accordingly point no. i, ii & iii are answered positively
in favour of the plaintiff.
Point No. v
7. Before going to discuss this point it is pertinent
to mention that, this is a suit for partition simplicitor. In
a partition suit the plaintiff is to prove- (a) that the suit
property is not partitioned by metes & bounds and still
 6

remains joint (b) the suit property is liable for partition

(c) he has a right over the suit property (d) all persons
having interest over the property are made parties in the
suit and (e) the intention of the plaintiff is to severe the
jointness.
Taking into consideration the above requirements
it is necessary to examine the evidence adduced both
orally and documentary in this suit on behalf of the
plaintiff. It is put forth by the plaintiff that, the schedule
suit properties mentioned under Exhibit 1 are recorded
in the name of deceased Gobinda Behera, who is the
father of defendant no.1, defendant no.2, defendant no.
4 and husband of defendant no.3. After death of
Gobinda Behera the plaintiff and all defendants are the
owners in possession of the suit properties having their
joint interest being the successors in interest of late
Gobinda Behera. The suit properties are not yet
partitioned by metes & bounds and all the parties are
possessing the same jointly. The plaintiff so also the
defendants are entitled to get 1/5th share over the suit
properties. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that,
unless the respective shares are carved out & recorded
in both the parties, it shall cause problems in future and
the parties cannot enjoy their respective shares at their
sweet-will.
As discussed supra during trial the plaintiff has
examined himself as P.W.1 and he has marked the RoR
 7

of suit properties as Exhibit 1. He also marked the

electronically generated rent receipt as Exhibit 2 which
goes on to show that, land revenue are being paid to the
Government in support of the joint possession over the
suit properties. As per the provision enshrined under the
Hindu Succession Act particularly Sec. 8, both the
parties to the suit are entitled to their respective shares
in respect of the suit properties being the legal heirs of
late Gobinda Behera. Admittedly both the parties
together are the successors in interest of said Gobinda
Behera. Therefore the plaintiff and the defendants are
entitled to equal share in the suit properties. As such the
plaintiff and the defendants each are entitled to get
1/5th share in respect of the schedule suit properties.
This point is answered accordingly.
Point No. iv & vi
8. So far as the question i.e, whether the suit
properties are partiable or not is concerned, Exhibit 1
reveals that, the Hal-RoR khata no. 236 under Mouza-
Chandpur containing plot no. 1313 & plot no. 1327
having an area of Ac. 0.110(eleven) decimals and Ac.
0.080(eight) decimals respectively are not consolidated
plot and it’s partition are not barred by Section 34 of
the O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act. As such the same can be
partitioned by metes & bounds between the plaintiff
and the defendants. Further this Court is of the opinion
basing upon the contending pleadings of the plaintiff
 8

that, the plaintiff is not entitled to any other relief.

These points are answered accordingly.
Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The suit be and the same filed by the plaintiff is
decreed preliminarily on contest against defendant no.1
to defendant no.3 and ex-parte against defendant no.4
but in the circumstances without any cost. It is hereby
declared that the plaintiff & defendants are entitled to
get 1/5th share each in the respect of the schedule suit
properties i.e, Hal-RoR khata no. 236 under Mouza-
Chandpur Tahasil-Ranpur containing plot no. 1313 &
plot no. 1327 having area of Ac. 0.110(eleven)
decimals & Ac. 0.080(eight) decimals respectively.
However, the parties are instructed to effect mutual
partition among themselves within three months hence,
failing which, any of them may seek to make the decree
final and to carve out his share, through a survey
knowing Civil Court Commissioner as per law.
Property, if any, sold by any of the parties would be
adjusted from their respective shares.

Advocate's fees will be assessed at contested

scale. -Sd/-
Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Div.), Ranpur.
 9

This Judgment is pronounced in the open Court

by me in my hand and the seal of the Court this the 02 nd
day of April, 2024.
-Sd/-
Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Div.), Ranpur.
Electronically typed to my dictation and corrected
by me. -Sd/-
Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Div.), Ranpur.

List of Plaintiff Witness.

P.W.1 : Dhirendra Kumar Behera
List of Defendants Witness.
NIL
List of Exhibits on behalf of Plaintiff.
Exhibit 1 : Certified copy of Hal-RoR vide
Khata No. 236
Exhibit 2 : Electronically generated rent receipt
of the suit properties.
List of Exhibits on behalf of Defendants.
NIL

-Sd/-
Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Div.), Ranpur.