F.A. No.
The case of Mahalakshmi and D 5 was that fifth defendant was taken in adoption by plaintiff on 17.4.1968 after performing the necessary rites, which is evidenced by a registered deed of adoption.
15 of 1972 by the second defendant and his wife, the sixth defendant.
Fourth defendant supported the plaintiffs case and later transposed as plaintiff No.
According to them, plaintiff Urmila died on 20.4.1967 at Cuttack while undergoing treatment for cancer.
The suit was instituted by Smt.
145 of 1971, F.A. No.
9 of 1972 by defendant No.
His daughter Mahalakshmi was brought on record as his legal representative alongwith defendants 2 and 3.
Plaintiff Urmila died pending the suit Her brothers son Bhojakrishna Panda came on record as her legal representative on the basis of the will dated 24.1.1969.
1 C Mahalakshmi and her son, fifth defendant and F.A. No.
First defendant too died after institution of the suit.
The fourth defendant took advantage of her situation and obtained the said will from her, they stated.
The basis of her claim was the partition effected on 22.6.1968.
They put forward an inter se partition between D 2 and the third defendant.
D 2 alongwith his wife D 6 filed a separate written statement.
She appointed the husband of the fourth defendant as her power of attorney holder to manage her properties.
According to her, Judhishter D 1 and Srinivas were brothers.
Since then, parties are in separate possession and enjoyment of the lands falling to their respective shares.
On 31.10.1968, she executed a deed of settlement in respect of some of her properties mentioned in plaint D schedule in favour of fourth defendant and simultaneously cancelled the power of attorney in favour of her husband.
They did number seriously companytest the case except trying to safeguard the partition between the plaintiff and Judhishter.
In the year 1967, there was a partition wherein plaintiff was given six annas share while 10 annas share was kept by first defendant and his family.
Srinivas had a son, Khalli who died long prior to the institution of the suit.
A deed of partition was executed on 22.6.1968 and registered on 27.6.1968.
Certain other minor reliefs were sought for which need number be set out here .
On the date of alleged will i.e. on 21.4.1969 she was number in a fit state of mind number did she have any independent advice available to her.
Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of first defendant.
Hence the suit.
All the three appeals were heard together by a Division Bench.
They denied the validity of the will dated 24.1.1969.
D 4 is her sister.
According to him, a partition had taken place between defendants 1, 2 and 3 in the year, 1952 and, therefore, there was numberoccasion for another partition in the year, 1968.
While she was at Cuttack, defendants 1,2 and 3 did number allow her or her representatives agents to harvest the paddy or companylect the usufruct from her lands.
Three appeals were preferred in the Orissa High Court.
On 24.1.1969, she executed a will in favour of her brothers son in respect of her remaining properties.
Son of Mahalakshmi was impleaded as fifth defendant.
145 of 1971 by third defendant, F.A. No.
Plaintiff is his widow.
15 of 1972.
All the three appeals were allowed and the suit filed by Urmila was dismissed.
Plaintiff was afflicted by cancer.
They admitted the story of partition set up by the plaintiff.
9 of 1972 and F.A. No.
Before the Division Bench a preliminary objection was raised by the appellants defendants that the suit as it stands is number maintainable and plaintiffs 1 and 2 who have been substituted in place of Urmila after her death during the pendency of the suit cannot proceed on with the suit and they are also number entitled to the reliefs which were claimed by Urmila.
First defendant was the karta of the joint family and was managing its affairs.
Third defendant also filed a separate written statement wherein he denied the story of partition.
Urmila Padhi for declaration of her title to plaint B schedule lands and companyfirmation of her possession thereon.
Alternatively, she prayed for a fresh partition.
F.A. No.
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. This Civil Appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decrees of the Orissa High Court made in three appeals viz.,
