1 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No.

01/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PARALAKHEMUNDI, DISTRICT: GAJAPATI.

PRESENT:

Sri Santosh Kumar Agrawala, LL.M,.,

Senior Civil Judge, Paralakhemundi.
(J. O. Code – 00422)

C.S. 01/2023

Sri Ramachandra Panigrahi, aged about 70 years,

S/o.- Late Purushottam Panigrahi,
Resident of Ramnagar, (Om Shanti Colony)
Po/PS- Paralakhemundi, District: Gajapati.

……. The Plaintiff(s)

-Vrs-

1. Smt. Sabitha Panigrahi @ Panda,

Aged about 58 years,
W/o- Late Rabindra Kumar Panigrahi,
Resident of Kharada, District: Gajapati.

2. Manoj Kumar Padhy, aged about 48 years,

S/o- Late Smt. Basanthi Padhy &
Venkata Ramana Padhy,
Resident of Katiguda,
Po/Ps- Rayagada, District: Rayagada.

3. Hemanta Kumar Panda, aged about 59 years,

W/o- Late Trilochana Panda,
Resident of Om Shanti Colony 3rd lane,
Po/PS- Paralakhemundi, District: Gajapati.

4. Premila Nayak, aged about 55 years,

W/o- Ganapati Nayak,
Resident of Bhusana Panigrahi Temple,
Po/PS- Paralakhemundi, District: Gajapati.
 2 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

5. Akshya Kumar Panigrahi, aged about 51 years,

S/o- Late Purushottam Panigrahi,
Resident of Katika Gouda Street,
Near Mahindra High School,
Po/Ps- Paralakhemundi, Dist- Gajapati.

6. Swapna Sundari Panda, aged about 49 years,

W/o- Simanchala Panda,
Resident of Mardharajpur, Po- Rentikota,
PS- Mandalam, Palasa, District: Srikakulam, A.P.

...… ….. The Defendant(s)

Counsel for the Plaintiff : … Sri P. K. Samal

Counsel for the Defendants no.1, 2 & 6 : … Sri R. Babu Rao

Counsel for the Defendants no.3 to 5 : … Ex-parte

Date of conclusion of argument : … 22.04.2024

Date of Judgment : … 25.04.2024

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit for partition.

2. The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that:-

The plaintiff and defendants are related to each
other and all are the legal heirs and successors of Smt.
Anuchaya Panigrahi. Smt. Anuchaya Panigrahi died on
11.8.2013. Her husband namely Purushottam Panigrahi
predeceased her before 12 to 13 years. The genealogy of
the parties are as follows:-
 3 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

Genealogy

ANUCHAYA PANIGRAHI
W/o. Late. Purushottam Panigrahi

Ramachandra Ravindra Akshaya Basanthi Hemalata Pramila Swapna

(Son) (Son) (Son) (Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter)
(died) (died)

Sabita Manoj
(Wife) (Son)

Anuchaya Panigrahi blessed with three sons namely

Ramachandra, Rabindra and Akshaya and four daughters
namely Basanti, Hemalata, Pramila and Swapna. The
second son Rabindra died leaving behind his wife Sabita
and his children. Similarly, the daughter Basanti died
leaving behind her only son Manoj. After the death of
Anuchaya Panigrahi, disturbance started among the family
members regarding the ancestral movable and immovable
properties which stand recorded in her name. There was a
family settlement on 26.12.2013 among the entire family
members in presence of other relatives and local elder
persons. In the said family settlement all the movable and
immovable property of Anuchaya Panigrahi was
partitioned. The item No. I property was allotted to the
defendant no.1, Sabita Panda (the wife of the second son
Rabindra Panda) and the item No. II property was allotted
to the eldest son Ramachandra Panigrahi (plaintiff). The
youngest son Akshaya Kumar Panigrahi (defendant no.5)
 4 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

was allotted with a cash of Rs.3,55,000/- to be paid by the

plaintiff and the defendant no.1. The plaintiff was to pay
Rs.3,00,000/- and the defendant no.1 was to pay
Rs.55,000/- to the defendant no.5. The daughters of
Anuchaya Panigrahi i.e., mother of the defendant no.2,
defendant no.3, 4 and 6 are to be paid Rs.50,000/- each by
the other members. When the plaintiff and defendant no.1
applied for mutation of item no.1 and 2 property in their
own name before the learned Tahsildar, Kashinagar, the
defendant no.5 and 6 raised objection for which the same
could not be mutated in their name. Hence, finding no
alternative the plaintiff has filed the suit against the
defendants for partition of the suit schedule property.

3. The defendants no.3 and 4 had been set ex-parte.

The defendant no.1, 2 and 6 have filed separate written
statement in which they have supported the case of the
plaintiff and prayed before the Court to pass necessary
order as per the family partition deed. No written
statement has been filed by the defendant no.5.

4. The following issues are settled for proper

adjudication of this case:-
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of
law?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has got cause of action
to file this suit?
 5 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

(iii) Whether the suit is barred by the law of

limitation?
(iv) Whether the parties are entitled to share over
the suit property as per the family settlement
deed dtd.26.12.2013?
(v) To what other relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled
for?

5. In order to substantiate the case, the plaintiff has

examined two witness and exhibited four documents on
his behalf. On the other hand defendants have examined
two witnesses and exhibited no document on their behalf.

FINDINGS

6. Issue No. (iv) :

(iv) Whether the parties are entitled to share over

the suit property as per the family settlement
deed dtd.26.12.2013?
This issue is tried at the outset for proper
adjudication of this case. The plaintiff claimed that there
was earlier family settlement between the parties on
dtd.26.12.2013 in which the movable and immovable
properties of Anuchaya Panigrahi were divided among her
legal heir and successors. The item No. I property was
allotted to Sabita Panda (the wife of the second son
Rabindra Panda) and the item No. II property was allotted
to the eldest son Ramachandra Panigrahi. The youngest
son Akshaya Kumar Panigrahi was allotted with a cash of
 6 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

Rs.3,55,000/- to be paid by Ramachandra Panigrahi and

Sabita Panda. Ramachandra Panigrahi would pay
Rs.3,00,000/- and Sabita Panda would pay Rs.55,000/- to
the defendant no.5. The daughters of Anuchaya Panigrahi
i.e., mother of the defendant no.2, defendant no.3, 4 and 6
were to be paid Rs.50,000/- each by the other members.
However, on perusal of the family settlement deed
dtd.26.12.2013 which is marked as Ext.-1, it is found that
it is mentioned in the said deed that there was also 9 tola of
gold of Anuchaya Panigrahi which amounted to
Rs.2,90,000/-. However, it is not mentioned in the said
settlement deed regarding who was allotted with that gold.
It is further found though the plaintiff claimed that the
item No. I property i.e., Plot No. 402 of Khata No.196 to
the extent Ac.0.024 was allotted to the defendant no.1 as
per the family settlement the ROR of the item No. I
property i.e., ROR of the Khata No.196 has not filed by
the plaintiff or the defendants in this case. Further, it is
mentioned in the said deed that the defendant no.5 was to
be paid Rs.3,55,000/-, jointly by the plaintiff and the
defendant no.1. However, no oral or documentary
evidence was adduced by the plaintiff that the amount of
Rs.3,55,000/- was actually paid to the defendant no.5.
Surprisingly, the plaint filed by the plaintiff is also silent
in this regard. Similarly, no oral or documentary evidence
was adduced by the plaintiff regarding payment of
Rs..2,00,000/- to the daughters of the Anuchaya Panigrahi.
 7 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

The plaint filed by the plaintiff is also silent in this regard.

Hence under the circumstance, it is found that the family
settlement deed made by the parties was not acted upon.
Hence under the circumstance, it is found that the
family arrangement deed dtd.26.12.2013 between the
parties has not been acted upon and not properly executed
by the parties. The family partition deed is also silent
regarding where about of the 9 tolas of gold articles
belonging to Anuchaya Panigrahi which amounted to
Rs.2,90,000/-. Further the copy of the ROR of the item
No.I property i.e., ROR of the Khata No.196 which is
included in the family partition deed has not filed by the
parties in this case.
Accordingly, it is held that the parties are not
entitled to share over the suit property as per the family
settlement deed dtd.26.12.2013.

7. Issue No. (i), (ii) and (iii):-

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present

form?
(ii) Whether there is cause of action to institute
the present suit?
(iii) Whether the suit is barred by the law of
limitation?

As discussed in the above paragraph, it is held that

the parties are not entitled to share over the suit property as
per the family settlement deed dtd.26.12.2013, it is also
 8 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

held that the suit is not maintainable, the plaintiff has got
no cause of action to file the suit.

8. Issue No. (v):-

(v) To what other relief(s) the parties are entitled

to?
The Parties are not entitled to any other relief(s).
Hence, ordered.

ORDER

The suit be and the same is dismissed on contest

against the defendants but without any cost.
Advocate's fee is at the contested scale.

sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Paralakhemundi.

The judgment is typed and corrected by me and

pronounced in the open Court on this the 25th day of April,
2024 under my signature and seal of this Court.

sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Paralakhemundi.

Witnesses examined for the Plaintiffs:-

P.W.1:- Ramachandra Panigrahi
P.W.2:- Lakshmikant Sahu
 9 Judgment in Civil Suit Case No. 01/2023

Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff:-

Ext.1 :- Unregistered family partition deed
Ext.1/a to Ext.1/j :- Signature of Ramachandra Panigrahi on
Ext.1 (on each page)
Ext.2 :- Original ROR of Khata No.4 of Mouza Kharada
Ext.3 :- Legal heir certificate of Purushottam Panigrahi
Ext.4 & Ext.4/a :- Rent Receipts

Witnesses examined for the Defendants:-

D.W.1:- Sabita Panigrahi @ Panda
D.W.2:- Nirakar Panigrahi

Exhibits marked for the Defendant:-

Ext.-A :- Signature of Nirakar Panigrahi (D.W.2) on the Ext.1.

sd/-
Senior Civil Judge,
Paralakhemundi.